Thunderf00t explores why Joss Whedon's support for Anita Sarkeesian is contradictory to his own works.

[–]AlphaWookie33 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr22 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper23 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What Joss Whedon is, is a sexual submissive. It's pretty obvious if you look at his body of work.

This explains why he supports feminism (because he likes the idea of women in power over men), but portrays women as sexual objects (because that's why he likes empowered women).

It also explains why he often portrays women as victims. It's because in his body of work, that is the moral barometer. It's how he tells you who the villain of the piece is. The hero is the guy who rescues the woman from the abuse, and then gets beaten up and/or treated with contempt by her. This last bit doesn't seem inconsistent to him, because to him it's a reward.

Someone who was feminist for non-sexual reasons would portray female characters taking care of themselves, but Joss won't do that because it's not his kink. What he wants to show is male physical power subservient to female social power. If female characters are taking care of themselves, then male characters cannot act like, and be treated like, their slaves.

[–]baskandpurr6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure. You know how Feminists like to attack any woman who is in a film who is sexualized by the film, but claim men cannot be sexually objectified in the same way? So for example, The Black Widow or Cat Woman is objectified, while Batman and Superman, Thor and Captain America are not. They are classified as 'male power fantasies.'

Whedon acts like he is flipping this trope on its head, ie. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Dollhouse, or the entire theme of Cabin in the Woods. He is self-reflexive in his analysis and 'criticism' of the very trope he himself then exploits. Just because the Cabin In The Woods is being critical of the genre and the order in which women die etc., doesn't mean he still doesn't hire some hot chick to parade around in hot pants, shake her ass and get murdered. Doesn't mean the geek doesn't still get the girl in the end. He thinks that simply by acknowledging the trope he is somehow doing something to change it. But he isn't, and the girls eat that shit up.

Take any of the women in Firefly. Anara is a whore, but he calls her a 'companion' and gives her brief moments of being 'powerful' enough to reject men and choose who she sleeps with for money as though that's some big deal. Well guess what? Real whores who aren't slaves get to do that too. They choose their clients as well. There is nothing empowering about having that in Firefly, he just casts a gorgeous girl and puts the occasional powerful line in her mouth that doesn't really do anything special, and people eat it up and buy completely into Joss's 'powerful woman writing.'

Take Zoe in Firefly. She's supposed to be some badass soldier woman, but she's a total babe and she's dating Wash, who is a total geek. This is a fantasy for men and women. The geeks eat it up, because it makes them think they can get a hot ass chick, and the girls eat it up, because it is a female power fantasy, and the Feminists don't criticize because Zoe 'acts and isn't acted upon.'

Joss makes an entire living off the principal of acknowledging the 'tropes' in films, and then creating characters that don't really break any of those tropes except in an extremely superficial way. They're all still gorgeous, they're all still complete fantasies, yet somehow it is okay for him because he acknowledges it and does it tongue and cheek, where as if someone else does it, they get criticized. Lara Croft? No way. Buffy? Definitely.

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're right about Cabin In The Woods.

Being gorgeous should not be a strike against a female's character. Some characters are written to be attractive like Inara (companions are suppose to be good looking), Buffy (the blonde, ditzy cheerleader who goes in the dark alley with a monster, not to die, but to kill it), etc. Other characters do not need to be attractive to fulfill their roles. However, due to film and television's tendency to cast attractive people, I suggest we drop this point of contention.

Inara being comfortable in her sexuality, I would argue, is very empowering. She's not ashamed of it or her profession, and sex workers who choose that lifestyle should not be either. Inara also happens to have more social power than anyone on Firefly. Her presence allows Firefly access to the more higher-end clientele. She's intentionally written to have sex appeal (it's her job), but nothing strikes me as exploitative.

Zoe is a badass soldier woman (not 'supposed') and she's good looking. But, I don't recall her being played up sexually, she's more of a no-nonsense type of girl. Her relationship with Wash is not properly explored in the series, but he seems to be the only viable choice. Too much history with Mal and Mal's attraction with Inara rules him out. Jayne is Jayne. So, if you're jumping from planet to planet with the same crew, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Wash to get with Zoe. I mean, he's not a weirdo.

I wouldn't say that these examples are completely unrealistic and played off for their sex appeal.

[–]Arakin3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean that's fine. Twilight influenced a lot of shit too. My point about Joss is that EVERYTHING HE DOES has to be somehow tied to empowering women, which is patronizing and white knightish and the ways in which he does it aren't even good. Take the Killing for example. A not traditionally beautiful woman who is a detective, a flawed character, who works with a male partner who isn't dumber than she is, but a different style than she is, and they both compliment each other, but she sort of runs the show. THAT is a great example of an 'empowered woman,' but nobody talks about it because she's not gorgeous and kicking ass with her tits out.

My point that I am making is that Feminists yell all the time about objectification of women during cinema, games, tv etc. but then praise things like Frozen and Whedon's women, because they acknowledge the 'trope.' Would girls like Frozen if the princesses were ugly? Would it be such a hit? Would Buffy have been a hit if Buffy was ugly? No. Whedon's attempt to empower women, and the praise he gets from women, is hypocritical and untrue. The women are treated not much differently than any other women in other films, in fact have LESS agency than plenty of other women in other forms of entertainment, but are not a female fantasy and are thus overlooked.

The point is that Feminists, and Whedon, want it both ways and on their terms. They want strong, powerful, ass kicking, 'empowered' women, and they want them to be beautiful too. They want them to have it all. Which is exactly what men want from their heroes. The difference is that Whedon and Feminists claim to want something different, but provide the EXACT same thing we get in other places, only they ACKNOWLEDGE IT to the audience and we're supposed to respect it. If Christina Hendricks hadn't openly told Mal that she had played him because he thinks she's hot, would people be praising Whedon for his female characters? Or would they be saying, "In fact, the only woman ever able to get one up on the all powerful Mal Reynolds, is Christina Hendricks, whose only weapon is her womanly charms, beauty, and ability to play the damsel in distress."

My point isn't that what Joss is doing is bed or anything, but how people treat him and see him because of what he says and that he acknowledges what he's doing is bullshit. Whedon says, "Oh, man. Horror movies always have to have a hot chick dancing around to be killed. What a joke. Isn't that so just fucking stupid and misogynistic? Here, real quick let me film one of those with a hot chick and have that be the only thing she does so you can get what I mean. I'm only doing this of course to make a self reflexive point on society and film, not to tantalize the audience or anything."

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure, Twilight was influential, but can we agree that Buffy was an influence of good? And, personally, I don't think Angel and Firefly were trying to cash in on the whole strong, female character thing, they just happen to have strong, female characters.

I've never watched The Killing, I'll have to take your word for it. If an empowered woman needs to be flawed, work well with others, but still run the show, then Buffy meets that criteria. Buffy hates being the Chosen One, she wants to be a girly-girl, but she sucks it up and executes. Sometimes she cuts off her allies even though they are stronger together. She's had self-destructive behavior and made poor choices. Buffy is part of a team known as the Scoobies, and I would say she's the second most powerful next to Willow. Finally, when I geek out about Buffy, I really don't talk about how attractive she is. Actually, she's pretty annoying in the first season.

Before we get into the whole beauty aspect, can we both agree that your choices are a little bit more limited being on broadcast versus being on cable?

Buffy was not created to be objectified. if people are objectifying her that's their issue. It's also hard to objectify someone when they have a lot of character development.

The women are treated not much differently than any other women in other films, in fact have LESS agency than plenty of other women in other forms of entertainment, but are not a female fantasy and are thus overlooked.

Can you expand on this?

The difference is that Whedon and Feminists claim to want something different

What are they claiming to want? Because I've always heard that they want it all.

You're right about The Cabin In The Woods not being empowering, but it's a great horror movie.

[–]Arakin3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look. The point is that Whedon's characters aren't anything unique or not. He simply pretends, and people believe him, that they are empowered women, when there are plenty of other empowered women out there that no one talks about, so much so that I don't even believe in the empowered woman. It depends on every film. There is such a thing as a non-empowered man as well, and if a man makes a film, he might just make a film about a man, and vice versa.

My point, let me state it again, is that Whedon acknowledges that ridiculousness that he and feminists perceive in media about the portrayal of women, while doing the exact thing that people criticize, but kinda pretending to not do it, and people praise him for it, while criticizing other female characters and saying they're objectified, simply because the filmmaker doesn't throw a little wink to the audience to say "I understand, I'm not objectifying anyone. Trust me!"

[–]ugly_duck3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not arguing about who is empowered and who's not. I'm arguing that this entire idea of 'empowered woman' is nonsense, and that the fact that Whedon's characters, who are hardly a departure in any sense, are looked at as great examples of strong empowered women, simply because Whedon ackowledges the supposed tropes and throws in a little wink to the Feminists to show that he understands them and assure the audience he isn't exploiting them in any way. It's all a big farse.

Whedon's obsession with 'strong female characters' is blatantly obvious in all his work and is basically just fan service to get his market, geeky boys and teenage girls, to like his work and buy it. He's no different than pandering Michael Bay, but at least Bay is honest about his pandering, while Whedon tries to pass it off as some form of social, cinematic justice. It's bullshit. The whole idea he's placating to is also bullshit.

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's the thing though. I personally am not criticizing shows for that. I have no issue with it. I don't have an issue with Whedon's work, with blatantly sexualized women or men on screen. I have no issue what so ever. I just don't like that Whedon pretends to be something he isn't and that people buy into it. Watch whatever you want. I think the entire argument is ridiculous.

Women complain about there not being enough complex strong parts in cinema and T.V., but hardly any women go become writers and directors to make those movies, and some of the most successful films and books are completely contrary to an 'empowered woman.' (Ie. Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey). Not to mention it's much easier to become a successful mainstream actress, because there are a billion ways to earn money off your looks while trying to make it, and hot women get a pass all the time even if they can't act, ie. Kate Upton.

So anyway. The criticism isn't mine. I don't even criticize shows for that. I think the entire argument is stupid and it annoys me that people try and say Whedon is empowering women. He's not. It's all a pandering ploy for marketing.

Alien, Aliens, Kill Bill, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Avatar, Ponyo, Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, Lost In Translation, the Matrix films, Scream, Winter's Bone, Under the Skin.

These may not be 'empowered women' in the sense of the gender politics bullshit, but they are good films with female leads.

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Can we stop using the phrase 'empowered women' or variations of it if you don't even believe in it? It's confusing.

Women complain about there not being enough complex strong parts in cinema and T.V., but hardly any women go become writers and directors to make those movies, and some of the most successful films and books are completely contrary to an 'empowered woman.' (Ie. Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey)

People should be able to complain when there is a misrepresentation of their population on mass media. That's why we don't really do blackface anymore. Also, for women to be able to get these complex, strong roles on screen, they are going to have to convince studios that audiences want to see these. For some reason women will go see male movies, but men won't really go to female movies. That's really nobody's fault, but women can't be expected to make the movies/films they want to see when studios won't finance them.

Not to mention it's much easier to become a successful mainstream actress, because there are a billion ways to earn money off your looks while trying to make it, and hot women get a pass all the time even if they can't act, ie. Kate Upton.

I think these women succeed because of demands from males.

I think the entire argument is stupid and it annoys me that people try and say Whedon is empowering women.

Whedon's Buffy offers a variety of female role models: Buffy, Willow, Tara, Anya, Cordelia, Dawn, etc. I think we can both agree we rather have more Buffy-esque females than Twilight's Bella and 50 Shades' Ana.

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women complain about there not being enough women represented on screen and blame men for it. I've got news for people. Cinema is 'art,' and chances are that men writers will write about men and women writers will write about women, as it is what you're drawing from in your own life to put into your art. As a generalization that's pretty true. If women want more women as leads in cinema, and there's a market for it, then why haven't women risen up to be directors in cinema? Because discrimination? Becoming a director is brutally hard, as is becoming a film writer, but if you can make money or present an awesome product that can, you will make it. The problem is, there's only a handful of female directors making films. What does this tell you?

Blackface is nowhere near the same thing. Blackface was white people making fun of black people by perpetuating stereotypes and using white actors to do so. Women actresses in female roles is not blackface.

The reason women still go to see male movies and men don't go see female movies, as a generalization, is that women are culturally conditioned to position themselves in the role of a male protagonist due to the larger amount of male protagonists on film. This is something you learn in Film 101. It's called on screen surrogate. Women are used to watching films with male leads and are thus more likely to go to male lead films. This has nothing to do with discrimination, it just has to do with more men making movies than women.

On that same point, you'll notice the most successful films always have some sort of appeal to the young adult female audience. Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey (book, movie coming soon), Titanic, Avatar, Hunger Games etc. The young adult girl market is there, but they don't go see movies like Resident Evil or Ultraviolet or any of these female lead big fantasy films. They support the young adult shit. 30+ year old women have no interest in blockbuster films with a female lead kicking tons of ass and it's evident from boxoffice history. Young adult women are interested in young adult fiction, cute shit from when they were a bit younger ie. Disney films, Pixar films, anime and stuff. Older women sure aren't paying to go see blockbuster films in general unless they're bringing their kids, and 20 somethings women go to the same shit every 20 something goes to: blockbusters and raunchy comedies and horror films. Not to mention there's wildly successful horror films with female leads: Alien, Halloween, Scream franchise, Paranormal Activity, as well as many many other horror films with heroines who win out in the end. Some of the franchises I listed above are some of the most renowed and classic and successful of all time. With female leads. Men went to see them and not because there's a bunch of sexualized women in them.

Who gives a fuck why they succeed? Of course a woman's sexuality is in demand from men. Women also look up to them. Why do you think those women appear on the cover of every woman's magazine? WHY they succeed doesn't matter. You want men to stop caring about female sexuality? Why? Not gonna happen anyway.

We can't both agree we'd rather have more Buffy females than Twilight and 50 Shades. Buffy is a CULT classic. It has a CULT following. Whedon's shit, aside from Avengers really, is always cult following. Like Kevin Smith. He plays to geek culture. Geek girls and geek boys. Geek girls are the kind of girls who like sexy girls who kick ass. Your average chick doesn't go see those movies. That's why they're not successful. Your average girl doesn't watch anime with kick ass girl heroins, Resident Evil, Ultraviolet, Firefly, Buffy and movies like that. Your average girl goes to Hunger Games, Twilight, reads 50 Shades of Grey. Your average guy goes to stupid shit like Marvel films, The A Team, The Expendables. It's ALL fantasy entertainment, and it plays into each genders fantasies. If there was a market for kick ass female leads, they would be wildly successful. They're not. They've been tried. Women don't go see them.

What does it say about women that 50 Shades is the fastest selling paper back in the history of humanity? What does it say about women that Twilight and Frozen are so wildly successful? What does it tell you about the success of Powerpuff Girls and G.I. Joe and Transformers? Boys and girls like different things, and to apply the same standard to cinema for both genders is completely ridiculous. If you are looking for more Buffy, you won't really find it in the mainstream, because Buffy is a cult hit, just like Firefly and many other good works. Women claim to want all this shit, but when it comes out, they don't go support it. That's why it doesn't get made. But films with a male lead and a likeable female sidekick, Ie. Twilight, Harry Potter, Avengers, Avatar, Titanic, etc. do huge huge numbers.

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Cinema is 'art,'

Yeah, and film/television is a business. I'm saying you can get the female market with male-oriented films, but you won't get the male market with female-oriented films. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of the Catch-22 that studios usually won't hire a director unless they are in the DGA and you can't get into the DGA without having been hired by a studio.

Blackface is nowhere near the same thing. Blackface was white people making fun of black people by perpetuating stereotypes and using white actors to do so. Women actresses in female roles is not blackface.

When male writers and directors portray females with little knowledge of what makes a female tick, then you're bordering on a parody.

The reason women still go to see male movies and men don't go see female movies

I never said this was discrimination. I'm just saying why would studios be interested in female oriented media when male oriented media does much better. There's little incentive to get female oriented media.

Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey (book, movie coming soon), Titanic, Avatar, Hunger Games etc. The young adult girl market is there, but they don't go see movies like Resident Evil or Ultraviolet

If you think women were the target audience for Resident Evil and Ultraviolet, then I think you need to reevaluate your thought process.

Not to mention there's wildly successful horror films with female leads: Alien, Halloween, Scream franchise, Paranormal Activity, as well as many many other horror films with heroines who win out in the end.

Having a female lead is not the same thing as being a female oriented film. The monsters and killers are usually the bigger draw than the female lead.

You want men to stop caring about female sexuality? Why? Not gonna happen anyway.

The problem is when all they care about is female sexuality. Then sexuality trumps strong and complex. It doesn't matter what a woman does as long as she's pretty becomes the standard. I mean you dismiss Buffy because of the overt sexualization. If that wasn't there, we'd have something we can both like.

We can't both agree we'd rather have more Buffy females than Twilight and 50 Shades.

Holy shit! Have you read Twilight or 50 Shades? Tell me how Bella or Ana is a better role model than Buffy?

Women claim to want all this shit, but when it comes out, they don't go support it. That's why it doesn't get made.

"women are culturally conditioned to position themselves in the role of a male protagonist due to the larger amount of male protagonists on film. This is something you learn in Film 101. It's called on screen surrogate. Women are used to watching films with male leads and are thus more likely to go to male lead films."

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

|I'm saying you can get the female market with male-oriented films, but you won't get the male market with female-oriented films.

False. You think only women saw Bridesmaids or Juno? More women might go see 'male-oriented' films, but it's for the reasons I mentioned below and I'm not sure how it's relevant.

|studios usually won't hire a director unless they are in the DGA and you can't get into the DGA without having been hired by a studio.

Studios aren't the only people who make movies, and no one is going to not hire you if you are good enough to direct a movie that will make money. They'll get you into the DGA. People make movies independently than guild up. This is bogus argument. How do you think directors get into the industry anyway?

|When male writers and directors portray females with little knowledge of what makes a female tick, then you're bordering on a parody.

So male writers can't write/cast/portray women? I thought Whedon wrote great female characters that you want more of. By your logic he's bordering on parody. And by that logic, female writers can't write men. Okay. Got it.

|I never said this was discrimination. I'm just saying why would studios be interested in female oriented media when male oriented media does much better. There's little incentive to get female oriented media.

Exactly. But if the market was there, they'd exploit it. Notice the trend in comic movies? Before the market wasn't there. Nolan brought it back. Iron Man brought it back, and now it's constant comic book films. Where is the film that's going to make 'empowered female leads' an exploitable market place? People try and try again to make movies that a buncha girls will go see based on powerful empowered women, and they fail time and time again. This is a reflection of what women want to see, not about what Hollywood wants to make.

|If you think women were the target audience for Resident Evil and Ultraviolet, then I think you need to reevaluate your thought process.

This is my point. If women WANTED to see that, women would go. They don't want to see that. They want to see Twilight. You think men want to see Twilight? What do women want to see according to you? Buffy? Cult classic. Empowered fantastical women going around kicking ass? Those movies fail. Tomb Raider? Nope. Bridesmaids? Sure. Did people go to Bridesmaids to see empowered women or raunchy comedy?

|Having a female lead is not the same thing as being a female oriented film. The monsters and killers are usually the bigger draw than the female lead.

And so what are these films with female leads that are waiting to be made that there's a market for?

|The problem is when all they care about is female sexuality. Then sexuality trumps strong and complex. It doesn't matter what a woman does as long as she's pretty becomes the standard. I mean you dismiss Buffy because of the overt sexualization. If that wasn't there, we'd have something we can both like.

I'm starting to wonder if you're actually reading my posts and arguing with me, or arguing with something you think I'm saying. I didn't dismiss Buffy for anything. I said Buffy isn't what it is said to be, and it's a cult classic. It's not a wildly successful franchise for mainstream audiences. If it were, there would be Buffy movies and plenty of Buffy ripoffs. There isn't. There's not. Men don't ONLY care about female sexuality in films. This is yet another straw man based on zero evidence. Look at successful films. Batman. Whose more fantastical in terms of body image? Christian Bale or Maggie Gyllenhal? Maggie is hardly a princess, nor is she ever sexualized in the film. Neither is Katie Holmes in the first film. Batman however, is shown shirtless and ripped throughout the entire triology. Why? Because he's something men in the audience aspire to be. Same thing with Wolverine, Captain America, Iron Man, James Bond etc. They're all aspirational examples of what a man would like to be. The only thing Wolverine and Captain America and Thor are good at is kicking ass and looking good while doing it. Nobody says shit, because somehow it's exactly what men want so it's okay. Women don't want to look good? In Avatar, who teaches Jake the ways of the forest and how to survive and not be an idiot? Nitiri, who also happens to be hot. Is Jack's avatar not hot? Are all the navi not good looking? You think people only like Nitiri because she's hot? She has a driving narrative force in the film, as does Gamora in Guardians of the Galaxy, as does Sara Conner in Terminator, as does Ripley in Aliens, as does Sidney in Scream, as does Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween, as does Angelina Jolie in Mr. And Mrs. Smith. I mean this argument is ridiculous.

|Holy shit! Have you read Twilight or 50 Shades? Tell me how Bella or Ana is a better role model than Buffy?

Can you link me to where I said anything about role models?

|"women are culturally conditioned to position themselves in the role of a male protagonist due to the larger amount of male protagonists on film. This is something you learn in Film 101. It's called on screen surrogate. Women are used to watching films with male leads and are thus more likely to go to male lead films."

Yes. This doesn't disprove my argument. More films about men come out. Women get used to going to see them. A female lead film comes out. If women have been yearning to see these films, as you and many feminists and women claim, then women should flock to the theatres to go see it. But they don't. They flock to the theatres to see Titanic and Avatar and Twilight and they buy 50 Shades of Grey and romance novels faster than a drug addict buys crack.

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I thought we were speaking in generalities. Dinging me for not being super specific is petty. I mean you use the specific word 'generalization' in your post, I thought it was understood.

False. You think only women saw Bridesmaids or Juno? More women might go see 'male-oriented' films, but it's for the reasons I mentioned below and I'm not sure how it's relevant.

You're correct, men did go see Bridesmaid and Juno. But we agree that, generally, male-oriented movies can pull in a female audience, while female-oriented movies do not, generally, pull in a male audience. With this in mind, studio heads, who are, generally, male, decide what gets made. Knowing that male-oriented movies will, generally, pull in more profit, they'll, generally, cho0se to greenlight male-oriented movies.

So male writers can't write/cast/portray women? I thought Whedon wrote great female characters that you want more of. By your logic he's bordering on parody. And by that logic, female writers can't write men. Okay. Got it.

Generally, they're not good at it. That''s why you see all the women and feminists complaining about women being portrayed in film and television. Generally, there are exceptions, like Joss Whedon.

Men don't ONLY care about female sexuality in films. This is yet another straw man based on zero evidence.

I never said men only care about female sexuality in films, but I understand how you would misinterpret me. I guess the point of what you misunderstood is in this infographic.

Can you link me to where I said anything about role models?

I think the entire argument is stupid and it annoys me that people try and say Whedon is empowering women.

Whedon's Buffy offers a variety of female role models: Buffy, Willow, Tara, Anya, Cordelia, Dawn, etc. I think we can both agree we rather have more Buffy-esque females than Twilight's Bella and 50 Shades' Ana.

We can't both agree we'd rather have more Buffy females than Twilight and 50 Shades.

You did not specifically say 'role models', but it seems you engaged me on thinking Buffy was a better role model than Ana or Bella.

Yes. This doesn't disprove my argument. More films about men come out. Women get used to going to see them. A female lead film comes out. If women have been yearning to see these films, as you and many feminists and women claim, then women should flock to the theatres to go see it.

I agree with you on this. Women, and men, are generally culturally conditioned to like what they like, which, generally, are male-oriented movies. If I want women and men to enjoy female-oriented films, I'm going to have to culturally condition them. To do that, I'll have to bombard them with female-oriented films until they like it. to get these female-oriented films out to the most people, I'm going to have to go through a major studio for a wide release. Can we agree that it is, generally, more difficult to get a female-oriented film released?

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

|You're correct, men did go see Bridesmaid and Juno. But we agree that, generally, male-oriented movies can pull in a female audience, while female-oriented movies do not, generally, pull in a male audience. With this in mind, studio heads, who are, generally, male, decide what gets made. Knowing that male-oriented movies will, generally, pull in more profit, they'll, generally, cho0se to greenlight male-oriented movies.

And? This isn't even completely true as women don't go see male oriented films that don't appeal to them in some way. I don't think very many adult women went to see Transformers on their own, but I do know that groups of adult men went to see Bridesmaids and Juno. It also doesn't matter, because studio execs make what makes money, not what they want to see. If there was evidence that these 'female oriented movies' that you claim have yet to be made would have a market, then they would be made.

|Generally, they're not good at it. That''s why you see all the women and feminists complaining about women being portrayed in film and television. Generally, there are exceptions, like Joss Whedon.

This is a sexist generalization. I don't see 'all the women' complaining about how women are portrayed. I see Feminists doing it, but Feminists also blatantly lie about shit and have double standards all over the shit they say, much like the way Anita Sarkeesian has a problem with video games she's never played, cherry picks bad examples to make a poorly researched point, and makes claims that are easily disproven. Women are also more open about their displeasure around parts. Men will complain less. Shia Labeouf got all kinds of criticism for criticizing Transformers and his role in it. Very few men will come out and talk about their concerns with their roles or their role in the industry, because no one gives a fuck.

|I never said men only care about female sexuality in films, but I understand how you would misinterpret me.

You mean like when you said:"The problem is when all they care about is female sexuality. Then sexuality trumps strong and complex. It doesn't matter what a woman does as long as she's pretty becomes the standard." and that you said I'm dismissing Buffy for overt sexuality at the same time. Another thing I never said.

Your infograph also doesn't prove much. Let's say for instance every war film ever made. Gonna have many amazing roles for women when the core of the story is the rebellion against the British, or fighting the Germans or Vietnam? You want to just invent some role for a woman simply because you feel they're underrepresented?

|You did not specifically say 'role models', but it seems you engaged me on thinking Buffy was a better role model than Ana or Bella.

I didn't.

|I agree with you on this. Women, and men, are generally culturally conditioned to like what they like, which, generally, are male-oriented movies. If I want women and men to enjoy female-oriented films, I'm going to have to culturally condition them. To do that, I'll have to bombard them with female-oriented films until they like it. to get these female-oriented films out to the most people, I'm going to have to go through a major studio for a wide release. Can we agree that it is, generally, more difficult to get a female-oriented film released?

This isn't what I'm saying. Men and women are not culturally conditioned to like what they like. I said women are more accustomed to watch films with a LEADING MALE PROTAGONIST than men are accustomed to the opposite. Simply because the lead is a male doesn't make it a male oriented film. Scream is not a female oriented film simply because the lead is a woman. Aliens is not a female oriented film due to Ripley being the lead. This is a more complex point than you're boiling it down to be. When you watch a film, the lead is your onscreen surrogate due to film techniques and experience. Women watch more movies with male leads because more films with male leads are made, and are therefore more accustomed to putting themselves in the shoes of a male lead. This doesn't mean the film is always male oriented. Kill Bill is a female lead, and men went to see it in droves. Uma Thurman was the lead. Does that make it a female oriented film?

If women want to go see 'female oriented films,' they will go see them when they come out. You treat women like they're brainwashed idiots. "Hey, look, girls there's this great girl movie out we should go see it!" her friends. "Nah, I don't wanna go watch that bullshit. Let's go see The Expendables." I mean what are you talking about? If there's a market for it, people will make shit for it. Notice how Nerd culture used to actually be small and exclusive? Gamers were looked down on. Now it's a major culture marketed to by large companies? Same with skateboards. Same with young adult novels marketed to girls. How come women write books about women who aren't the lead driving the narrative through action? How come a woman wrote Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey? How come a woman made the Hurt Locker?

You have an extremely sexist view of the world and it's insanely ironic that you claim women don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what art they should consume and what they should not. How come the most popular female artists are sex symbols? You think men are buying tickets for Lady Gaga and Nicki Minaj and Iggy Azalea and Ariana Grande? You think it's men they're marketing to with those videos of the girls being all sexy and shit? Girls go to those shows. Girls buy those albums. How big of a % of Iggy Azalea's sales are from straight men? I mean give me a break. Women aspire to things just like men. Women aspire to different things just like men. There are less female directors because less women aspire to positions of power than men. This is just a fact. I'm not saying ALL women don't want positions of power and authority, but less of them do than men. This is just a proven fact throughout history, and this is why women, on the whole, don't respond and demand movies like Thor but with a woman Thor. This is why Twilight is successful. This is why girls like girl toys and boys like boy toys. It's why boys grow up smacking each other with sticks and shit for fun and wrestling and girls do other shit.

These 'female-oriented films' you claim to want don't even have a clear definition of what you want. You also act as though the only people making movies are the studios. You also act as though it's easy in general for a film to get released or made.

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't know where you got this from or what I said.

These are quotes. From our conversation. This whole conversation started about Buffy and empowerment. You were the first person to use the word 'empowerment'. My main goal is to prove that Buffy is empowering. The other stuff is just for fun.

My question:

Whedon's Buffy offers a variety of female role models: Buffy, Willow, Tara, Anya, Cordelia, Dawn, etc. I think we can both agree we rather have more Buffy-esque females than Twilight's Bella and 50 Shades' Ana.

You give this, now in hindsight, vague answer:

We can't both agree we'd rather have more Buffy females than Twilight and 50 Shades.

Why didn't you just say "I don't have a stance on Buffy vs. Bella or Ana as role models, considering I haven't read 50 Shades of Grey, and I only saw one Twilight movie." Have you seen Buffy?

Can someone impartial jump in and referee this? I know someone is following because I didn't downvote Arakin's comment a couple of posts back.

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm asking where you're getting this thing about role models and who should or shouldn't be. You're misconstruing things I'm saying society says as things I'M saying.

I'm not giving you a hindsight vague answer. I'm saying what I've been saying that you've been missing. Me saying "we can't both agree" is the same thing as me saying "I don't have a stance" just in different wording. THE ROLE MODEL THING IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I AM NOT MAKING IT.

This is what I have been saying this ENTIRE THREAD. YOU want to debate me on who should be a female role model in art. I DO NOT. I'm telling you hard facts about what people go see, why things get made, and what that says about what people want to see. Women DON'T consumer 'empowering' female cinema/TV to the extent that they consumer things like Twilight and 50 Shades and Titanic, which are not what people would consider the epitome of female empowerment or female role models. You say Buffy is empowering. Fine. I don't want to argue about whether she is or not. I've said this about 100 times. I said I wasn't dismissing her because she was sexualized. You said I said that. I never said that. I said I am not saying that. I'll say it again. I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

What I am saying is that you claim women need more examples of empowered women and better role models in cinema etc. I'm saying that even when given those characters, women don't respond with such acceptance as they do when presented with things like Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey and Titanic. There's plenty of girls who want to be Bella, and have fantasies about living in the Twilight universe, and I'd bet there's more of them than there are women who fantasize about being Buffy or the Black Widow or Catwoman.

What is MY personal opinion on this? Whether this is good or bad or whatever? That's not the issue. I'm not bringing my opinion into this. I said I think the entire idea of empowering or strong female characters is stupid. I think people respond to what they respond to, and if there was this market there not being filled that you claim is there, people would be filling it. Someone would be stepping up to try and make this a reality. Whedon said "somebody needs to make the first great female superhero movie," or something to that effect. This is a great statement for him to make because he doesn't have to step up and actually do anything. He just says it and it reinforces this belief that Whedon is some crusader for women's rights and the portrayal of women in cinema.

You are completely seeing beyond what I am saying and into a different realm, and also conveniently throwing out every good point I make in my long ass posts and only cherry picking 1-2 quotes to criticize me with. I'm starting to enjoy this less and less.

Buffy being empowering is not the issue. Whether she is or isn't is not the issue. HOW WOMEN RESPOND to her is the issue. The fact that you believe men can't write female characters is an issue. The fact that you can't define this unfulfilled market of female oriented empowering entertainment is an issue. The fact that you can't define female oriented films is an issue. The fact that you skip over many great points that I make about male lead != male oriented. That male leads do not always mean male role models. That female lead != female oriented film. The fact that you believe women need to be told what kind of media to consume by someone...as long as it's not a man, is an issue.

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm asking where you're getting this thing about role models and who should or shouldn't be. You're misconstruing things I'm saying society says as things I'M saying.

"What I have an issue with is Joss pretending he writes empowering female characters and all the women and feminists agreeing."

The fact that you skip over many great points that I make about male lead != male oriented. That male leads do not always mean male role models. That female lead != female oriented film. The fact that you believe women need to be told what kind of media to consume by someone...as long as it's not a man, is an issue.

Here's the thing, I was the first one to mention female lead does not mean female-oriented. I said this because you said:

The young adult girl market is there, but they don't go see movies like Resident Evil or Ultraviolet or any of these female lead big fantasy films.

Which really sounds like you think just because Resident Evil and Ultraviolet are female-led that they are female-oriented.

The big thing is that I think you're the type of person that can't be wrong about anything, and that's why we've gotten so off topic. I don't think we can have a productive conversation without a little give and take.

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I really don't understand you and think you're misreading my sentences. Seriously. I'm not in anything to "win" and don't know how you could say that when I told you your views on what you watch are just fine and you should watch what you want and feel about it how you feel. I've asked you what you are as female oriented films and where the void in the market is and why you think it isn't being filled. I've asked you why Twilight and 50 Shades are insanely successful, are purely supported by women and have nothing to do with female empowerment in the use of the word these days. I've asked you why you think I have any opinion about female role models. I've brought up that I don't dislike Joss work but dislike the discussion and disingenuous presentation of his work. I've mentioned female lead films that aren't automatically female oriented and used that ad an example of why women can watch make lead films as the sex of the lead doesn't automatically determine the orientation of the film. You don't comment directly on any of this you just respond with questions to me as though you care more about fleshing out my personal views rather than discussing the actual points in reality that I bring up.

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've asked you what you are as female oriented films and where the void in the market is and why you think it isn't being filled.

Female oriented films are films featuring females, the female perspective, and designed to appeal to females. As we continue to grow, female and male interests will overlap.

I'm not sure we can say there's a void in the market, but there are some untapped markets. Women will go see movies Hunger Games, Twilight, Frozen, and Maleficient are all in the Top 10 for US Box Office returns.

Ask any female, and they'll say they want more female friendly movies. However, as we've already discussed the smart money is in male-oriented films.

If you're not willing to admit that it is significantly more difficult to get a female-oriented film seen by the audience than a male-oriented film, then there's not much to discuss.

I've asked you why Twilight and 50 Shades are insanely successful, are purely supported by women and have nothing to do with female empowerment in the use of the word these days.

These books and films tap into the female psyche for some reason. They're not good from an objective stand point (I've read all of them). People who like them admit they're not good, they're a guilty pleasure. So I think they there is a market for well-written female romance novels that no one was tapping in, but, as you noticed, YA novels are becoming trendy. I know that the YA genre is looked down upon so people aren't initially attracted to it. However, some talent will follow the money and quality will grow.

I've asked you why you think I have any opinion about female role models.

This whole thread started from your criticism of Whedon's characters being empowering. Characters that are empowering usually serve as role models.

I've brought up that I don't dislike Joss work but dislike the discussion and disingenuous presentation of his work.

Without data this is just an opinion. I mean have you met Joss? Have you watched his interviews? Does he come off as being disingenuous? There's plenty of criticism and praise about how his work is feminist. He does enough to merit Slayage the Buffy Studies academic journal.

I've mentioned female lead films that aren't automatically female oriented and used that ad an example of why women can watch make lead films as the sex of the lead doesn't automatically determine the orientation of the film.

Clarify.

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

|Female oriented films are films featuring females, the female perspective, and designed to appeal to females. As we continue to grow, female and male interests will overlap.

Which can only be written by women right? And directed by women too, because men can't do that right? According to you. This is still so insanely broad and vague without use of any examples or counterexamples that there's no argument. How about a few examples of such films, and a few examples of their anti-thesis?

|I'm not sure we can say there's a void in the market, but there are some untapped markets. Women will go see movies Hunger Games, Twilight, Frozen, and Maleficient are all in the Top 10 for US Box Office returns.

An untapped market is the same thing. You're sure there's a market, for some sort of yet undefined film, only made by women, only written by women, that appeal to women, even though women are creating some of the biggest franchises in history from their support of certain films and books and television shows, material which you've classified is simply a guilty pleasure for all those females who are consuming said material. Have I got this right? And if smart money is in male oriented films, why are all successful films now produced as "Four Quadrant films?" "In the movie industry, a "four-quadrant movie" is one which appeals to all four major demographic "quadrants" of the moviegoing audience: both male and female, over and under 25 years old.[1]" Surely if smart money was in 'male oriented films' The Expendables 3 would have made more money than 100 million world wide vs. the 800 million worldwide Twilight's finale made.

|If you're not willing to admit that it is significantly more difficult to get a female-oriented film seen by the audience than a male-oriented film, then there's not much to discuss.

And you know this how exactly? You work in Hollywood? You ever tried pitching a movie?

|These books and films tap into the female psyche for some reason.

For some reason? It's not hard to figure out. It's female fantasy, just like romance novels, the best selling novels on the planet. That's like saying action films tap into the male psyche for some reason. Men have their own fantasies, as do women. Men's fantasies center more around power and action and success, and women's center more around all the shit going on in Twilight and Titanic and 50 Shades. You can figure those out for yourself so you don't get me into a semantics argument about female fantasy. The market for 'well written female romance novels' market doesn't need to be exploited, as the romance novels now that are selling, have been selling, and continue to sell, are appeasing the market just fine. I don't see what the big deal is about whether or not they're written like Hemmingway or not. As a matter of fact, once you write TOO WELL, your audience drops. That's why cinematic masters like Kubrick and Scorsese don't reach the same audience as people like Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan. Not that this matters at all to this discussion.

YA novels are becoming trendy because females go to see the movies. Boys aren't going to the hunger games on their own, or Twilight or any of these movies. They're pulling YA novels off the shelves and making movies out of them because people go. I don't know why you feel the need to address the talent of the people writing/making the films. If people want to go, they'll go.

|This whole thread started from your criticism of Whedon's characters being empowering. Characters that are empowering usually serve as role models.

Okay. Let me go back and address this again for like the 100th time. I said Joss Whedon's female characters are not any different than a thousand other female characters on screen, and are in fact less empowered than many other women I could cite as examples. Whedon is hailed as some empowering figure for women, which goes against your claim that men can't write women, because he speaks about it and acknowledges it. Just because someone has an academic journal about him doesn't mean anything.

I think the entire concept of an empowered woman is horse shit. Simply by being the lead in a film you are empowered as you are the person driving the narrative forward. By definition you are empowered, even if you're running from your life trying to escape a murderer the entire film. You are 'empowered.' This concept of empowerment is such bullshit because it is examined not by the actual merit of the work, but by how the work is presented and how people feel about its creator. You've already shown your own sexism in claiming men can't write women characters, except when it comes to Joss of course. Feminists/women/critics will look at someone like Nitiri in Avatar or Black Widow or Catwoman, and say they're not empowered women because they're just male fantasies. But they'll look at Buffy or the girls in Firefly and say they're empowered, because Joss talked about wanting to make empowered female roles. They'll claim men are not able to be sexually objectified in roles like Thor or Captain America or Wolverine, because all men want to look like them and they're just a male power fantasy. But of course any woman who is active and also sexually appealing is able to be criticized or hailed as empowered, based on who the critic is and who the creator is. This has been shown many a time on this sub about the double standards Feminists specifically use to deconstruct entertainment and art. The empowered woman is a shifting goal post definition based upon who you talk to and who created the work. She's hot and makes money off her looks? She's not empowered, she's just there to be eye candy. She's hot and makes money off her looks in a Joss Whedon movie? She's empowered. She is an average looking woman with a great job and career and drives the narrative forward? Nobody talks about her. She's all that AND great looking and likes to be confident in her sexuality and there's scenes in the movie with her having sex and shit and she's hot? She's empowered. There is no definition for empowered woman. I've asked you several times for one and cited many examples in TV and film of strong, complex female characters that appear in films not marketed necessarily to women, and you never speak on them again.

So now we will talk role models. Empowered people are not role models. Patrick Bateman is an empowered man. He is wealthy, good looking, in amazing shape, has a hot fiance, fucks hot prostitutes, lives in an incredible building -- and is a psychopathic serial killer. He's not a role model, but he's the epitome of empowered. Do men look at him as a role model? No. The only thing men take from that character is wishing they had his physique.

Take Buffy or Bella. Buffy is kick ass and hot. Bella is helpless, stuck in a love triangle, awkward and shit, and good looking and pursued by two gorgeous superhuman dudes. Buffy is a cult hit, Twilight is a massive hit. Now according to you, empowered people are role models, so Buffy should be peoples role model and not Bella. But is Bella really a role model for anyone? Are there girls out there with any brains in their heads thinking, "You know what? I'd like to be an awkward pasty girl in a love triangle with a vampire and a werewolf. I'm gonna aspire to be one." No. There are fantasy elements of that that are appealing, but no one is aspiring to be Bella in the same way no one is aspiring to be Patrick Bateman. Role models are role models. It's their status that makes them role models, and how they got it, because people have to have something they see in a role model to aspire to. Who could Bella be a role model to and how? You show a rich successful drug dealer, and people who are susceptible to that kind of aspirational lifestyle will be drawn to it. ie. rappers who like Scarface and Goodfellas. You show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and girls are going to aspire to be her? That's like boys aspiring to be Captain America. They're not role models. They're fantasies that you can draw something from. A role model is something you can actually achieve. Something you can actually want to be. More often REAL PEOPLE. Joss Whedon can be a role model. Jay-Z can be a role model. Thor is not a role model. Thor is a fantasy that you wish you could one day achieve. He can be inspirational, but he's not a role model. You cannot model your life after Thor and more than you can after Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Joss absolutely comes off as being disingenuous. He brings up this empowered women shit all the time. It's marketing. He appeals to the geek market for men and women, and he knows that female geeks want kick ass women in their movies, just like geeky boys want themselves represented (ie. Wash or any of the nerds he puts in his films) and a strong hero type like Mal Reynolds or Iron Man or whatever to look up to and wish they were. This is why things like Tomb Raider and Kill la Kil and Buffy appeal mostly to the nerd/geek culture of girls who go to Comicon and shit, and not to your average high school/college girl who probably doesn't even know what that shit is. Whedon is capitalizing on that market just like Bay capitalizes on the teenage boy market. If you really think Whedon is geniune about wanting to empower women so he writes female characters who are super hot and kick ass...just like all kinds of other people do...but then says he's empowering them, then maybe you need to reevaluate not me.

|Clarify.

Clarify what? Read my last post. I'm really getting bored of you ignoring what I write, picking out one sentence then asking me to repeat it.

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which can only be written by women right? And directed by women too, because men can't do that right? According to you. This is still so insanely broad and vague without use of any examples or counterexamples that there's no argument. How about a few examples of such films, and a few examples of their anti-thesis?

You know I said men can't do it generally. Take your examples of Ultraviolet and Resident Evil, which can also serve as the anti-thesis. For example of female-oriented movies think Mean Girls, Frozen, and Sex And The City.

And if smart money is in male oriented films, why are all successful films now produced as "Four Quadrant films?"

You're right about the Four Quadrant films, just like you were right about women being culturally conditioned to watching movies with male leads (which usually are male-oriented movies). My statement about the smart money being in male oriented films is that males have not been culturally conditioned to watching movies with female leads.

Surely if smart money was in 'male oriented films' The Expendables 3 would have made more money than 100 million world wide vs. the 800 million worldwide Twilight's finale made.

You say you hate cherry picking stats, but I hate to tell you that these are cherry picked stats. I like to measure trends. I'll let you interpret this list of Top-US-Grossing Feature Films Released In 2014.

And you know this how exactly? You work in Hollywood? You ever tried pitching a movie?

Inequality in Filmmaking.

For some reason?

Yeah, you're right.

I think the entire concept of an empowered woman is horse shit.

There's a difference between empowering and empowered. The fact that people are inspired to emulate Buffy's characteristics means she's empowering. Buffy is empowered by being the Slayer to hunt vampires.

Feminists/women/critics will look at someone like Nitiri in Avatar or Black Widow or Catwoman, and say they're not empowered women because they're just male fantasies.

No, they like them just fine. They'll criticize people who would make them do things that go against their characters. Like if Nitiri started burning down the forest. Or if Black Widow or Catwoman just wait around to get rescued.

There is no definition for empowered woman. I've asked you several times for one and cited many examples in TV and film of strong, complex female characters that appear in films not marketed necessarily to women, and you never speak on them again.

An empowered character would be someone who is fleshed out to have life outside of the plot. Ana and Bella don't seem to have a life outside of their love interest. They just wait around for them. Buffy on the other hand had to juggle a regular job, taking care of Dawn, Slayer duties, etc. Her life is interrupted by the plot.

So now we will talk role models. Empowered people are not role models.

I know, I said Whedon's characters are empowering. They can be both empowered and empowering. So you're going to have to adapt your response.

They're not role models. They're fantasies that you can draw something from. A role model is something you can actually achieve.

We have different ideas of what can be a role model. I think of role models as something to strive for. Yes, it might be unhealthy to go too far in emulating fictional characters. The reason I think Bella would be a terrible role model is because she doesn't do anything. There's nothing to emulate. If Buffy is your role model, she's a person/character that protects people, she's tough, she can fight, etc.

If you really think Whedon is geniune about wanting to empower women so he writes female characters who are super hot and kick ass...just like all kinds of other people do...but then says he's empowering them, then maybe you need to reevaluate not me.

The problem here is that you are reducing the character to just looking good and kicking ass. When they are obviously more than that. Have you seen Buffy?

Clarify what?

There's some spelling and grammar mistakes. I've edited it to what I think you meant.

I've mentioned female lead films that aren't automatically female oriented and used that as an example of why women can watch/make/lead films since the sex of the lead doesn't automatically determine the orientation of the film.

I think you're asking me to address females in the film industry which I do earlier in this post.

I'm really getting bored of you ignoring what I write, picking out one sentence then asking me to repeat it.

What did I miss from this post?

I really don't understand you and think you're misreading my sentences. Seriously. I'm not in anything to "win" and don't know how you could say that when I told you your views on what you watch are just fine and you should watch what you want and feel about it how you feel. I've asked you what you are as female oriented films and where the void in the market is and why you think it isn't being filled. I've asked you why Twilight and 50 Shades are insanely successful, are purely supported by women and have nothing to do with female empowerment in the use of the word these days. I've asked you why you think I have any opinion about female role models. I've brought up that I don't dislike Joss work but dislike the discussion and disingenuous presentation of his work. I've mentioned female lead films that aren't automatically female oriented and used that ad an example of why women can watch make lead films as the sex of the lead doesn't automatically determine the orientation of the film. You don't comment directly on any of this you just respond with questions to me as though you care more about fleshing out my personal views rather than discussing the actual points in reality that I bring up.

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm going to bow out of this conversation. You're comparing Buffy, a TV show, to the female characters in a book adapted for screen. A book written by a woman. 50 Shades? Written by a woman. Books are stripped down to their bare plot. You think Edward or Jacob are deeper than Bella? Get a grip. Your 'trends' about movies shows one thing: huge blockbusters based on prior intellectual material make lots of money. Who woulda thunk. You are still ducking all my best points and refusing to answer them.

I get it. You love Buffy. You love Whedon. Fantastic. You still haven't addressed what kind of films you'd like to see made. You still don't even get that my comment about Feminist criticism about the sexualization of female superheroes who are 'empowered' is actually real, and Feminists criticize female superheroes for being hypersexualized when the men are at the same time.

There's only so many posts I'm willing to go through with someone so reductive with her replies. I wrote you like a massive book and you quoted a few sentences.

You say there's space in the film world for more empowered women, and the only example you have is Buffy, which was a TV show. I show you what shows women actually go to and what are monumental successes, and you ignore it and say women just don't know any better. Ironically, the writers of those books the movies were based on were women. I've given you counter examples of strong women in other films written by men that you completely ignore. I explain a four quadrant film to you and just because maybe the film has a lead male in it you dismiss the film as made for men.

You have nothing left to discuss. You claim there's this untapped market for empowered women in female oriented films, but you can't give me a single idea about what that might be besides quoting Buffy. I get it. You love Buffy. Amazing. It's a TV show with a cult following. If it was such an influential thing you'd have Buffy movies and Buffy spin off shows and Buffy spin of show movies. You don't.

I refuse to continue this discussion until you actually present some thought of your own and stop cherry picking my long ass posts I write back.

edit: i'll just add this here in case you care to understand some more of what I'm talking about with this empowerment and sexualization double standard bullshit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6TiRJNI-Q

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're comparing Buffy, a TV show, to the female characters in a book adapted for screen. A book written by a woman. 50 Shades? Written by a woman.

This is what I mean when you just say 'fuck it'. We've been comparing Buffy, Bella, and Ana for the longest time, but now it's off limits. Why would I introduce new elements when those seem to be working fine?

Books are stripped down to their bare plot.

Maybe for people who are learning to read. Some books actually like to fill their worlds with substance. Harry Potter is full of little nuggets that allude to a whole Wizarding society.

Your 'trends' about movies shows one thing: huge blockbusters based on prior intellectual material make lots of money.

That's all you got from it? How do you feel about the idea that 9 out of top 10 grossing films seem to be aimed at males. Meaning that male-oriented films grossed 2.079 billion compared to female-oriented film's 239 million.

You still haven't addressed what kind of films you'd like to see made.

Female-oriented films like Frozen, Sex And The City, and Mean Girls. This is me repeating myself.

You still don't even get that my comment about Feminist criticism about the sexualization of female superheroes who are 'empowered' is actually real, and Feminists criticize female superheroes for being hypersexualized when the men are at the same time.

Penny for your thoughts. Big muscles on superheroes are required because the person would have gotten big muscles from being a superhero. If anything, female superheroes should also have well-defined muscles. Showing off your tits and ass is not necessarily required.

There's only so many posts I'm willing to go through with someone so reductive with her replies. I wrote you like a massive book and you quoted a few sentences.

Do you want me to respond to every single sentence? Take this paragraph for instance:

Take Buffy or Bella. Buffy is kick ass and hot. Bella is helpless, stuck in a love triangle, awkward and shit, and good looking and pursued by two gorgeous superhuman dudes. Buffy is a cult hit, Twilight is a massive hit. Now according to you, empowered people are role models, so Buffy should be peoples role model and not Bella. But is Bella really a role model for anyone? Are there girls out there with any brains in their heads thinking, "You know what? I'd like to be an awkward pasty girl in a love triangle with a vampire and a werewolf. I'm gonna aspire to be one." No. There are fantasy elements of that that are appealing, but no one is aspiring to be Bella in the same way no one is aspiring to be Patrick Bateman. Role models are role models. It's their status that makes them role models, and how they got it, because people have to have something they see in a role model to aspire to. Who could Bella be a role model to and how? You show a rich successful drug dealer, and people who are susceptible to that kind of aspirational lifestyle will be drawn to it. ie. rappers who like Scarface and Goodfellas. You show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and girls are going to aspire to be her? That's like boys aspiring to be Captain America. They're not role models. They're fantasies that you can draw something from. A role model is something you can actually achieve. Something you can actually want to be. More often REAL PEOPLE. Joss Whedon can be a role model. Jay-Z can be a role model. Thor is not a role model. Thor is a fantasy that you wish you could one day achieve. He can be inspirational, but he's not a role model. You cannot model your life after Thor and more than you can after Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

This is all you need to get your point across:

Take Buffy or Bella. Buffy is kick ass and hot. Bella is helpless, stuck in a love triangle, awkward and shit, and good looking and pursued by two gorgeous superhuman dudes. Buffy is a cult hit, Twilight is a massive hit. Now according to you, empowered people are role models, so Buffy should be peoples role model and not Bella. But is Bella really a role model for anyone? Are there girls out there with any brains in their heads thinking, "You know what? I'd like to be an awkward pasty girl in a love triangle with a vampire and a werewolf. I'm gonna aspire to be one." No. There are fantasy elements of that that are appealing, but no one is aspiring to be Bella in the same way no one is aspiring to be Patrick Bateman. Role models are role models. It's their status that makes them role models, and how they got it, because people have to have something they see in a role model to aspire to. Who could Bella be a role model to and how? You show a rich successful drug dealer, and people who are susceptible to that kind of aspirational lifestyle will be drawn to it. ie. rappers who like Scarface and Goodfellas. You show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and girls are going to aspire to be her? That's like boys aspiring to be Captain America. They're not role models. They're fantasies that you can draw something from. A role model is something you can actually achieve. Something you can actually want to be. More often REAL PEOPLE. Joss Whedon can be a role model. Jay-Z can be a role model. Thor is not a role model. Thor is a fantasy that you wish you could one day achieve. He can be inspirational, but he's not a role model. You cannot model your life after Thor and more than you can after Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Why address everything, when it doesn't matter until we decide on the one thing.

You claim there's this untapped market for empowered women in female oriented films, but you can't give me a single idea about what that might be besides quoting Buffy.

Take any non-historical movie plot and switch the genders of all the characters. Now adjust to make the dialogue sound more realistic for the switched genders.

I show you what shows women actually go to and what are monumental successes, and you ignore it and say women just don't know any better.

You'll have to refresh my memory. I can't find it combing through the old posts.

If it was such an influential thing you'd have Buffy movies and Buffy spin off shows and Buffy spin of show movies.

Angel was spin-off of Buffy. The Buffy-verse is enjoying a pretty profitable life as a comic books. The reason it's not being produce in multiple mediums is because Joss Whedon is extremely protective of it.

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uhh...you're more critical about sexuality than I am.

Joss is pretty disingenuous about his women in his shows. They're always completely unrealistic, and he still plays off their sex appeal.

There is nothing empowering about having that in Firefly, he just casts a gorgeous girl and puts the occasional powerful line in her mouth that doesn't really do anything special, and people eat it up and buy completely into Joss's 'powerful woman writing.'

She's supposed to be some badass soldier woman, but she's a total babe and she's dating Wash, who is a total geek.

THAT is a great example of an 'empowered woman,' but nobody talks about it because she's not gorgeous and kicking ass with her tits out.

Would girls like Frozen if the princesses were ugly? Would it be such a hit? Would Buffy have been a hit if Buffy was ugly? No.

Not to mention it's much easier to become a successful mainstream actress, because there are a billion ways to earn money off your looks while trying to make it, and hot women get a pass all the time even if they can't act, ie. Kate Upton.

They flock to the theatres to see Titanic and Avatar and Twilight and they buy 50 Shades of Grey and romance novels faster than a drug addict buys crack.

Men's fantasies center more around power and action and success, and women's center more around all the shit going on in Twilight and Titanic and 50 Shades.

First, I just don't like it when sexuality trumps a person's character. Second, it's a shitty Spider-Woman cover (it's really more of a pin-up). There's the traditional sexy pin-up, and comics have a kind of pin-up that highlights the person's cool abilities or puts them in a classic pose. Spider-Woman, for instance, can fly and shoot venom blasts. She rarely crawls around, she usually uses her sticking ability for perching (to launch off and fly).

Also, Milo Manara, the artist, is best known for his erotic art.

Like the guy said in the video, context. I know what Spider-Woman usually does and I know Manara is an erotic artist. Looking at the cover, Spider-Woman isn't really doing anything. She doesn't even need her powers to be in that pose, she's on a rooftop. I can not really discern a real purpose for her to be like that.

[–]baskandpurr1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Thunderf00t explores why Joss Whedon's support for Anita Sarkeesian is contradictory to his own works.
Author	Snagprophet
Upvotes	73
Comments	112
Date	September 3, 2014 11:51 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2fckna/thunderf00t-explores-why-joss-whedons-support-for-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/thunderf00t-explores-why-joss-whedons-support-for.1620701 https://theredarchive.com/post/1620701

Comments