No Right Answer: Is All-Female Ghostbusters Sexist?

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
JimB said:
-snip-

tzimize said:
I'm sorry guys, but in general women are just not funny. And that's not a sexist thing to say, I just don't find them very funny. It has nothing to do with their boobs and vaginas, but all to do with their sense of humor.
Er...you do know the definition of sexism has nothing to do with explicit references to a person's generative organs and secondary sexual characteristics, right? It's defined as attitudes or behaviors based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. So when you say one sex can accurately be stereotyped as less funny, that's the dictionary definition of sexism.

-snip-
Sexism is prejudice or gender discrimination. An opinion can be sexist, but I will not accept this one to be that. If I said women are not funny and they should not get the vote...that'd be sexist.

I personally find women to be less funny. Thats a personal preference based on my experience thus far in life. I'm not saying they cannot be, I'm just saying in general they are less funny than men. I dont find women to be worth less because of it, I just find them different that way. For all I know, women are the opposite way, and find men in general to be less funny than women. Men and women are different in many ways. Some are obvious, others are not. Some come down to a personal preference. Would you say a heterosexual person is sexist because he prefers naked people of the opposite sex? I believe not. Humor is the same. A preference.

Equality is about rights. About having the same possibilities. Women have the same opportunities as men to be funny, and for some people they might deliver. To me, they simply havent'.

For the record, I have a girlfriend, she is funny, and she also agrees with me.

Edit: Some things are stereotypical, but they can be true at the same time.

If I say that women are more interested in shoes than men, and its true, is that sexist? Disclaimer: I have no statistical evidence to back this up, but say that said evidence existed, would it still be sexist to say it?
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Is it sexist? Well, maybe.

First, lets remember that what defines sexism is motivation, not action. As people argued in the "benevolent ssxism" thread a little bit back as made the most sense in determining this sort of thing, what makes something sexist is when you are treating a gender differently then another motivated by the gender itself. In the case of benevolent sexism, if you hold a door for a woman because she is a woman, that was sexist, but if you held it because you hold it for everyone, that wasn't. Same action, motivation determined if sexist.

That established, lets look at this. Is the all-female ghostbusters done because they are treating one gender differently then another because of the gender? Well, signs point heavily to yes in this case. The presentation of the idea as a freak-show concept certainly suggests it. Even in the video, remember how it was worded. Paraphrased.

"Ghostbusters don't have enough fandom to support a movie, but there is enough people who want more female roles"

So if that is truly the studio motivation, then yes, that is BLATANTLY sexist. Benevolent sexism, sure, but still sexism.

Lightknight said:
So, in your mind announcing an all male ghostbusters is sexist while an all female ghostbusters is not?

Holy double standards batman.
Motivation. Considering the effect seems to be offering both choices because of gender, then yes, BOTH are sexist. Compare to the original movies, where they seemed to just picked good comedians without caring about gender. Thus the result then was all-male leads but not sexist.

As argued before, motivation, not action or results determines sexism or not (which is only rational, sexism being predominantly described as treatment or opinions of someone differently based on gender because of said gender). If the studio is trying to market both around the gender choices, it shows the motivation for the decisions were gender-based. In that regard, it was sexist in both accounts.

captcha: glass ceiling
Hello again, my snarky, sentient friend.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
tzimize said:
Sexism is prejudice or gender discrimination. An opinion can be sexist, but I will not accept this one to be that. If I said women are not funny and they should not get the vote...that'd be sexist.
You and I have very different, very incompatible understandings of what the word "prejudice" means if you think you can say, "The women I have known are not funny, therefore the women in the cast of the new Ghostbusters will not be funny," without it being a form of judgment made prior to your experience of the thing you judge.

tzimize said:
Equality is about rights.
Okay, but I don't remember who said anything about equality.

tzimize said:
For the record, I have a girlfriend, she is funny, and she also agrees with me.
Uh, I'm glad the person romantically engaged with you supports your belief of what a word means, but until and unless she makes a cogent and convincing argument to me, I am not inclined to accept her authority over that of a dictionary just because she has a vagina.
 

DiMono

New member
Mar 18, 2010
837
0
0
There's an argument that is obvious to me, but that you mostly seemed to miss (Dan did touch on it): yes, we the movie-going public want to see more women in movies. But making "The female Ghostbusters" is the most patronizing way possible to do it. Yes they'll give us a movie with an all-female lead cast, but only in an existing franchise that was previously established with male leads. We want more women in movies as actors, not as gimmicks.

A related topic that wouldn't really have been suitable for this episode: how many times have we seen a terrible movie with a female lead bomb at the box office, and the studio assumes it did poorly because the lead was female, rather than because it was a terrible movie? Catwoman and Elektra bombed at the box office, being legitimately terrible movies because the studios had no faith in them and didn't want to commit any resources to them, and then when they did poorly the studios decided that those results supported their initial doubts, and use that as justification to keep women out of lead roles. It's frustrating, especially knowing that there are so many excellent stories with female characters just waiting to be told, but that since the studios don't have any faith in the female leads, those movies won't get made any time soon. We've been waiting how long for a Wonder Woman movie?
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
JimB said:
tzimize said:
Sexism is prejudice or gender discrimination. An opinion can be sexist, but I will not accept this one to be that. If I said women are not funny and they should not get the vote...that'd be sexist.
You and I have very different, very incompatible understandings of what the word "prejudice" means if you think you can say, "The women I have known are not funny, therefore the women in the cast of the new Ghostbusters will not be funny," without it being a form of judgment made prior to your experience of the thing you judge.

tzimize said:
Equality is about rights.
Okay, but I don't remember who said anything about equality.

tzimize said:
For the record, I have a girlfriend, she is funny, and she also agrees with me.
Uh, I'm glad the person romantically engaged with you supports your belief of what a word means, but until and unless she makes a cogent and convincing argument to me, I am not inclined to accept her authority over that of a dictionary just because she has a vagina.
My point is that sexism is about negativity. It is about believing that something is inferior to something else based on what it is. I dont think women are inferior to men, just because they are less funny.

Its not sexist to point out a difference in the sexes, its sexist if you think that difference somehow makes the other sex worth less.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

There are differences in how the brain works between men and women. We are simply not exactly the same. Does that mean we cant be similar? Of course not. When the brain works differently, and our sexes can (and often do) interpret social interactions from different viewpoints, it stands to reason that those differences will make themselves known in different ways. Sexism does not mean admitting that the sexes are not literally equal. Sexism is about feeling that the sexes are not of equal value. If you believe women are worth less because they are less funny, you are sexist. If you believe women are less funny or less sexy for that matter, its just a matter of personal taste.

It would be the same if I said I find Asian women to be sexier than African women. That doesnt make me racist, its just a matter of taste.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
tzimize said:
My point is that sexism is about negativity. It is about believing that something is inferior to something else based on what it is.
It's...not, though. That is just not what the word means. Look, I really am trying to cut back on the whole "words mean things" tactic I used to use in these kinds of debates, because I need to acknowledge that words are subjective symbols being used imperfectly to try to communicate complex and personal ideas, and as such arguing over what a word means is often deliberately missing the point of communication as a concept; but I think if you're going to try to redefine what the word means, then you should probably get used to having to offer your personal definition every time you use the word. You don't get to say, "I'm not sexist, but women aren't funny," without opening this can of worms.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
JimB said:
tzimize said:
My point is that sexism is about negativity. It is about believing that something is inferior to something else based on what it is.
It's...not, though. That is just not what the word means. Look, I really am trying to cut back on the whole "words mean things" tactic I used to use in these kinds of debates, because I need to acknowledge that words are subjective symbols being used imperfectly to try to communicate complex and personal ideas, and as such arguing over what a word means is often deliberately missing the point of communication as a concept; but I think if you're going to try to redefine what the word means, then you should probably get used to having to offer your personal definition every time you use the word. You don't get to say, "I'm not sexist, but women aren't funny," without opening this can of worms.
What is it about then if its not about negativity?

Would you say I am racist if I think Asian women are more sexy than African women? If not, why not?

If I go through life, and I see 100 female comedians, and 80 of these are unfunny to me, and I see 100 male comedians, and 20 of these are unfunny to me, is it sexist to draw the conclusion that women are less funny to me? It seems like plain logic. Am I sexist because I have a particular taste? Am I racist because I have a particular taste? I think not.

If you take away that sexism is not about negativity, it at the very least has to be about treating people differently. I dont treat female comedians any differently. They have the same opportunity to make me laugh, even if they fail more often than men in my particular case.

If its not about treating people differently I'd be interested to know your particular definition on sexism, instead if you just saying "you say that, you're sexist".
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
tzimize said:
What is it about then if its not about negativity?
You already provided the correct definition: discrimination and prejudice. You seem to think those things denote hatred or negative feelings or active oppression, but they don't. Discrimination is simply (at least in this usage) to make a distinction in favor of or against someone on the basis of a group or class to which that person belongs, and prejudice is simply, as the etymology of the word suggests, holding preconceived feelings or opinions. You don't want to see an all-female Ghostbusters movie because you discriminate against its comedy because it's being told by women, and you are prejudiced because you think a movie you haven't seen won't be funny on the grounds that it's women telling the jokes.

tzimize said:
Would you say I am racist if I think Asian women are more sexy than African women? If not, why not?
That is an enormous issue neither of us wants to get into right now. There's certainly room to argue you are; after all, if women as genuinely gorgeous as Tyra Banks and Rihanna can feel they need plastic surgery to look more white in features, then there's a definite racial bias in American culture's perception of beauty, and one that most Asian races I can easily think of don't need to cut their faces with knives to achieve. But do I have any idea if your attraction is motivated by some personal idiosyncrasy or a pervasive and subtle racial bias? Nope. I am not going to comment on whether your boner belongs in the KKK.

tzimize said:
If I go through life, and I see 100 female comedians, and 80 of these are unfunny to me, and I see 100 male comedians, and 20 of these are unfunny to me, is it sexist to draw the conclusion that women are less funny to me?
It is at the very least intellectually lazy to do so instead of saying the female comedians you have seen are less funny. As most oncologists will tell their patients, statistics are largely irrelevant in individual cases because they describe what is in the past, not what is in the future. If your particular cancer has an eighty percent chance of killing you, that number is only relevant after your death when it can be determined if you died of the cancer or something else. Likewise, your hypothetical eighty percent failure rate with female comedians doesn't matter until you have actually seen the comedian you're announcing isn't funny.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
JimB said:
tzimize said:
What is it about then if its not about negativity?
You already provided the correct definition: discrimination and prejudice. You seem to think those things denote hatred or negative feelings or active oppression, but they don't. Discrimination is simply (at least in this usage) to make a distinction in favor of or against someone on the basis of a group or class to which that person belongs, and prejudice is simply, as the etymology of the word suggests, holding preconceived feelings or opinions. You don't want to see an all-female Ghostbusters movie because you discriminate against its comedy because it's being told by women, and you are prejudiced because you think a movie you haven't seen won't be funny on the grounds that it's women telling the jokes.

tzimize said:
Would you say I am racist if I think Asian women are more sexy than African women? If not, why not?
That is an enormous issue neither of us wants to get into right now. There's certainly room to argue you are; after all, if women as genuinely gorgeous as Tyra Banks and Rihanna can feel they need plastic surgery to look more white in features, then there's a definite racial bias in American culture's perception of beauty, and one that most Asian races I can easily think of don't need to cut their faces with knives to achieve. But do I have any idea if your attraction is motivated by some personal idiosyncrasy or a pervasive and subtle racial bias? Nope. I am not going to comment on whether your boner belongs in the KKK.

tzimize said:
If I go through life, and I see 100 female comedians, and 80 of these are unfunny to me, and I see 100 male comedians, and 20 of these are unfunny to me, is it sexist to draw the conclusion that women are less funny to me?
It is at the very least intellectually lazy to do so instead of saying the female comedians you have seen are less funny. As most oncologists will tell their patients, statistics are largely irrelevant in individual cases because they describe what is in the past, not what is in the future. If your particular cancer has an eighty percent chance of killing you, that number is only relevant after your death when it can be determined if you died of the cancer or something else. Likewise, your hypothetical eighty percent failure rate with female comedians doesn't matter until you have actually seen the comedian you're announcing isn't funny.
Intellectually lazy? So what you are saying is that taking experiences you have through life, extrapolating information and odds from these, and use them in your future choices is lazy? I am not saying that I know for a fact that every female I ever meet in life will be dull. I am saying that odds are I will find less of them funny than the men I meet (or whose shows I watch). I cant possibly KNOW that female ghostbusters will be bad, but I can reasonably think I will not like it.

I would say that doing nothing at all with your brain is a lot more lazy.

How about heterosexuals then? Would you say heterosexual men are sexist because they think women are more sexy than men? Probably not.

The point I'm trying to get across is that taste does not equal prejudice. At least not in any normal interpretation of the word...

It seems to me from the "answers" you give, that you are not particularly interested in presenting a decent argument as much as just saying that I am wrong. I tire of this to be honest, so I'll get off at this stop.
 

Firefilm

New member
May 27, 2011
1,801
0
0
Oh, it's ending :(

I rather liked the show, it acknowledged that it's possible for the same event or situation to generate two entirely opposing and yet yet valid opinions which is blood rare on the internet.

Good luck in the future all concerned.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
tzimize said:
Intellectually lazy? So what you are saying is that taking experiences you have through life, extrapolating information and odds from these, and using them in your future choices is lazy?
No. I am not sure how else to phrase it to avoid further misunderstanding, since I thought I was really clear and specific in my choice of language already.

tzimize said:
I am not saying that I know for a fact that every female I ever meet in life will be dull.
No, just that movies and television programs you haven't seen aren't funny because there are too many ovaries among the actors in them.

tzimize said:
I would say that doing nothing at all with your brain is a lot more lazy.
Uh, okay. I don't know why you think I should excuse an instance of laziness because it is less lazy than the most lazy thing you can possibly imagine, though; that's like saying I can't be mad at the guy who killed my mom because that guy isn't Hitler.

tzimize said:
Would you say heterosexual men are sexist because they think women are more sexy than men?
...Are you serious with this question? Are you really asking me if I intend to condemn the existence of sexual preference?

tzimize said:
The point I'm trying to get across is that taste does not equal prejudice.
If you decide you dislike a thing before you have experience of that thing, then yes, it is. That is the definition of the word. Check the dictionary if you don't believe me.

tzimize said:
It seems to me from the "answers" you give that you are not particularly interested in presenting a decent argument as much as just saying that I am wrong.
Yes, based on how much you have been misrepresenting my arguments, I am quite sure it does seem that way to you.

tzimize said:
I tire of this, to be honest, so I'll get off at this stop.
You will forgive me if I find your protestations of weariness lacking in sincerity, given how much time and effort you spent trying to give yourself the last word here.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
hooblabla6262 said:
Lightknight said:
hooblabla6262 said:
I hope this movie has success, if only for the increased likelihood that movie studios take more chances like this.
Though I honestly doubt that it will do that good.

I also don't think that an all female cast is sexist, cause that doesn't make any sense. The movie could end up being sexist, but that kind of seems unlikely.
What I do find a little sexist is the announcement of an all male Ghostbusters. Kind of undermines the whole thing.
So, in your mind announcing an all male ghostbusters is sexist while an all female ghostbusters is not?

Holy double standards batman.
It just sort of undermines the whole point of having an all-female ghostbusters.
Like "hey guys we got this new idea for ghostbusters but don't think it's actually going to work, so here's the REAL ghostbusters as well!"

Get what I'm getting at?
Not really, I think giving an equal stage to it is the point. There being an all male ghostbusters does not detract from there being an all female ghostbusters. It existing at all is the point. I don't think making both versions is a stated belief in inherent failure so much as rebooting the series and taking risks. Imagine if both were popular? Quite the money train. Make no mistake, these studios didn't make an all-female version just to lose money. That'd be insane. What they did was cater to a specific group of people and then catered back to the standard market.



runic knight said:
Lightknight said:
So, in your mind announcing an all male ghostbusters is sexist while an all female ghostbusters is not?

Holy double standards batman.
Motivation. Considering the effect seems to be offering both choices because of gender, then yes, BOTH are sexist. Compare to the original movies, where they seemed to just picked good comedians without caring about gender. Thus the result then was all-male leads but not sexist.

As argued before, motivation, not action or results determines sexism or not (which is only rational, sexism being predominantly described as treatment or opinions of someone differently based on gender because of said gender). If the studio is trying to market both around the gender choices, it shows the motivation for the decisions were gender-based. In that regard, it was sexist in both accounts.
Motivation determines sexism, action/results determines institutional sexism. Both are wrong.

JimB said:
Lightknight said:
hooblabla6262 said:
What I do find a little sexist is the announcement of an all-male Ghostbusters. Kind of undermines the whole thing.
So, in your mind announcing an all-male Ghostbusters is sexist while an all-female Ghostbusters is not?

Holy double standards Batman.
It's only sexist if you insist on applying the same standards in a white room without regard for social context. In an industry where the Bechdel Test is a very accurate observation, creating a movie with four female leads is less inherently sexist (though what do I know about the creative team's minds; maybe they're doing it because they think women are better than men and should rule us all in a tyrannical gynarchy in which upon puberty every man is milked for semen to propagate the species and then is ritually castrated, for all I know) than it is an attempt to correct a depressingly childish evil.
As I stated in my first post, this is a rare scenario of victimless sexism. In making both movies they have made it so that neither movie resulted in certain actors or actresses not being hired on the basis of their sex.

But had they just made one? What does it matter to a budding actor if other male actors once enjoyed benefits of being male if they themselves have just not been haired on the basis of their own sex? Saying that "males have had enough" and so specifically giving people jobs based on sex as long as their women isn't so bad is an egregious sexist stereotyping of men.

We should continue to be against sexism in all its forms. Is equality really too much to seek?

When that same industry then rushes to reassure an audience that feels outraged and threatened by a comedy starring four people who each own and operate their own personal vagina, that's a lot harder to pass off as anything but sexist.
Oh no, people are mad about overt sexism?! The horror.

The logic just doesn't follow. People have been outraged about how many shows star people who own and operate their own personal penis. Why shouldn't outrage flow both ways for that rational minded?

Are we supposed to want equality or are we secretly just pushing for female superiority until such a time when some arbitrary spokesperson deems it to have been "enough"?
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lightknight said:
But had they just made one? What does it matter to a budding actor if other male actors once enjoyed benefits of being male if they themselves have just not been hired on the basis of their own sex?
About as much as it matters to all the female actors who don't get speaking roles in movies because there's only room for one speaking, female character, and that's the love interest.

Lightknight said:
Saying that "males have had enough" and so specifically giving people jobs based on sex as long as they're women isn't so bad is an egregious sexist stereotyping of men.
I...don't think "stereotyping" is the word you meant, here. If it is, I don't understand the sense of it, and ask you to please explain.

Lightknight said:
We should continue to be against sexism in all its forms. Is equality really too much to seek?
Yes, it is. Equality is a ridiculous notion. Equality (and I've probably made this rant before, but screw it, it's still true) is a refusal to admit differences in abilities or opportunities and thus insists that everyone who wants to be a neurosurgeon gets to be one, because otherwise people wouldn't be equal. It insists that everyone who auditions for a movie has to get the role they want, because otherwise the auditioners aren't being treated equally.

Lightknight said:
Oh no, people are mad about overt sexism?! The horror.
I understand that you're being ironic, but not about what.

Lightknight said:
Are we supposed to want equality or are we secretly just pushing for female superiority until such a time when some arbitrary spokesperson deems it to have been "enough?"
Wait, back up, I'm totally lost now. What's female superiority? Are you arguing that having a female cast for one out of three Ghostbusters movies is a form of superiority? Is there some actual thing you're declaring as female superiority, or have we moved into the realm of the hypothetical now?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
JimB said:
Lightknight said:
But had they just made one? What does it matter to a budding actor if other male actors once enjoyed benefits of being male if they themselves have just not been hired on the basis of their own sex?
About as much as it matters to all the female actors who don't get speaking roles in movies because there's only room for one speaking, female character, and that's the love interest.
This is a non-answer. You can't say that X isn't bad because Y is also bad. That doesn't necessarily follow.

They can both be bad. Racism against Asians isn't magically less bad because Racism against Hispanics exists. They're just both bad.

I...don't think "stereotyping" is the word you meant, here. If it is, I don't understand the sense of it, and ask you to please explain.
It's the stereotype that because someone is male then obviously they have benefitted from it in society and life is just awesome because they are male and so a specific female is more deserving of a helping hand than a specific male is.

<youtube=EC21NF5rbSk>

Is it fair to say that men have been represented in these movies more thoroughly? Sure. Is it fair to say that John is less deserving of the role than Sally because he was born a male? Hell no.

What's interesting is that consumers of many of these kinds of movies are significantly more likely to be males. As a sexually dimorphic species we do have different genre preferences on average and young males trend significantly more towards action films for example whereas females trend much higher towards dramas and romance films. Older males start gravitating more towards dramas as well.

You'll notice that dramas and romances are far more likely to pass Bechdel test. I would posit this is because of the intended audience far more than some arbitrary moral attempt to make everything equal in the eyes of specialty groups.

Yes, it is. Equality is a ridiculous notion. Equality (and I've probably made this rant before, but screw it, it's still true) is a refusal to admit differences in abilities or opportunities and thus insists that everyone who wants to be a neurosurgeon gets to be one, because otherwise people wouldn't be equal. It insists that everyone who auditions for a movie has to get the role they want, because otherwise the auditioners aren't being treated equally.
Huh? No, equality means that everyone has a fair shot. It means that you getting hired for something is because you are the most qualified for that position rather than just because you were born with or without breasts. It means that a man casting a vote in an election counts as 1 vote and so does anyone from any other demographic.

Equality isn't some sort of smarmy "everyone gets a medal" malarkey. You and I are in the same boat there.

Fair and equal treatment isn't "everyone wins". It's everyone on a level playing field and if you didn't get the grades to go into neurosurgery then that's your fault or someone else's fault other than an unfair playing field that didn't want you to be a surgeon because you weren't born the right color.

I understand that you're being ironic, but not about what.
You stated that people the industry responded to people upset that they decided to make an all one sex lead cast.

That is textbook sexist in that they discriminated based on sex.

Being upset that sexism that favors women is happening should not be seen as lesser than being upset that sexism that favors men is happening.

All sexism sucks and should all be demonized alike. It is wrong to trivialize one group dismayed at sexism when elevating another group being upset about it.

Wait, back up, I'm totally lost now. What's female superiority? Are you arguing that having a female cast for one out of three Ghostbusters movies is a form of superiority? Is there some actual thing you're declaring as female superiority, or have we moved into the realm of the hypothetical now?
I'm saying that supporting sexist decisions that support females is as unethical as supporting sexist decisions that support males.

Any institutional sexism that supports one gender over another lends itself to that gender's superiority.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lightknight said:
You can't say that X isn't bad because Y is also bad.
I didn't. I said, "Someone is going to get screwed on this deal either way, and it can either be John or every woman in the business, so, sorry, John.

Lightknight said:
It's the stereotype that because someone is male then obviously they have benefited from it in society and life is just awesome because they are male and so a specific female is more deserving of a helping hand than a specific male is.
I...don't remember anyone saying that. I remember people talking in generalities.

Lightknight said:
As a sexually dimorphic species we do have different genre preferences on average and young males trend significantly more towards action films for example whereas females trend much higher towards dramas and romance films. Older males start gravitating more towards dramas as well.
I assume you have some offer of proof that this is a hard-coded genetic imperative rather than being the result of social factors convincing filmmakers to market their products along gender lines.

Lightknight said:
You'll notice that dramas and romances are far more likely to pass Bechdel test. I would posit this is because of the intended audience far more than some arbitrary moral attempt to make everything equal in the eyes of specialty groups.
I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of what you just said. Would you please rephrase?

Lightknight said:
Huh? No, equality means that everyone has a fair shot. It means that you getting hired for something is because you are the most qualified for that position rather than just because you were born with or without breasts.
Actually, the word you're thinking of is "equity." Equality is, by definition, all or nothing. Either two things are exactly equal, or they're not equal.

Lightknight said:
Being upset that sexism that favors women is happening should not be seen as lesser than being upset that sexism that favors men is happening.
I disagree that leveling a playing field is a form of sexism.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
JimB said:
I didn't. I said, "Someone is going to get screwed on this deal either way, and it can either be John or every woman in the business, so, sorry, John.
No one has to get 'screwed'. John or Jane can get hired because they're the best candidate for the role and the one that doesn't get hired isn't hired because they weren't.

FYI, it can't be John or every woman in the business. It could only be one person.

I...don't remember anyone saying that. I remember people talking in generalities.
Is it fair to maintain generalities when it's happening to specific people? We are talking about a specific set of people who were hired because they are female.

I assume you have some offer of proof that this is a hard-coded genetic imperative rather than being the result of social factors convincing filmmakers to market their products along gender lines.
It happens across media. Literature, movies and even video games. Are you thinking mass conspiracy? Maybe some illuminati involvement? A bunch of people who wouldn't want to make money from expanding markets?

I'm sure there is some chicken vs egg going on here but we do know of differences between men and women that likely correlate with things like the action genres as far as aggression an preference for violence in general.

As for "hard-coded genetic", in humans that's difficult to distinguish from social programming but we know what the side effects of testosterone are where aggression and violence are concerned.

I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of what you just said. Would you please rephrase?
Basically that all these people are in the business to make money. Romances and Dramas are frequently catered more towards women because women are more likely to be their primary consumer and so that's where they make money.

To assume that every company is catering towards men in the action films out of a sense of past is to disregard all the independent thinkers of the industry and the business savvy they've consistently displayed.

Actually, the word you're thinking of is "equity." Equality is, by definition, all or nothing. Either two things are exactly equal, or they're not equal.
Quick google definition: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

It doesn't mean that anyone can be a doctor.

Synonyms of equality and equity overlap. This includes "fairness".

I disagree that leveling a playing field is a form of sexism.
I didn't say leveling a playing field is sexism. Leveling a playing field and then restacking the deck the other way is.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lightknight said:
No one has to get 'screwed.' John or Jane can get hired because they're the best candidate for the role and the one that doesn't get hired isn't hired because they weren't.
This is all getting very abstract. What specific role do you think John and Jane are qualified for but one more than the other for reasons that have nothing to do with either actor's sex?

Lightknight said:
FYI, it can't be John or every woman in the business. It could only be one person.
It can be if the formulae are such that only one woman per movie gets a speaking role.

Lightknight said:
Is it fair to maintain generalities when it's happening to specific people? We are talking about a specific set of people who were hired because they are female.
Yes, because I, at least, am talking about the environment it's in. It's still fair to talk about global warming during a day when it's cold outside.

Lightknight said:
Are you thinking mass conspiracy?
More like social inertia.

Lightknight said:
I'm sure there is some chicken vs egg going on here but we do know of differences between men and women that likely correlate with things like the action genres as far as aggression an preference for violence in general.
"Likely?" How likely?

Lightknight said:
All these people are in the business to make money. Romances and dramas are frequently catered more towards women because women are more likely to be their primary consumer and so that's where they make money.
And are women more likely to see these kinds of movies out of preference, or because they're being sent signals of exclusion from the other genres?

Lightknight said:
To assume that every company is catering towards men in the action films out of a sense of past is to disregard all the independent thinkers of the industry and the business savvy they've consistently displayed.
I didn't say that, but thank you for the cautionary tale, I guess.

Lightknight said:
Quick Google definition: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
Definition of equal: the same as.

Lightknight said:
I didn't say leveling a playing field is sexism. Leveling a playing field and then restacking the deck the other way is.
Then I don't understand what you're arguing against, if you're saying one movie out of however many millions of movies that have been made to this point is restacking the deck.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Motivation determines sexism, action/results determines institutional sexism. Both are wrong.
Please, explain. Because that just seems like a round-about way to go "yes, sexism is determined by motivation, but I still want a way to label imbalances I perceived as sexist as well."

There is no "correct" balance result in terms of gender, race or any other trait. Yes, it may be irksome to see an imbalanced split in gander ratios in a certain career field, or a disproportionate amount of one race in the prison system then another, but regardless personal feelings of those results in relation to an idea of what it should be, that alone is not sexism, regardless if you wish to add the modifier of "institutional" in front, at least not until you demonstrate the motivation part is still there to justify the core sexist part.

that is not to say that there are not institutions that exist that express such bigoted motivations (the race issue being a prime example of expressed racism in police and judicial judgement), but that in turn can still be sourced in the motivations of the police intentionally arresting blacks more or the judges giving harsher punishments to blacks. One can't simply point to an imbalance itself as example of any sort of institutionalize anything. Action does not define sexism, ever. The reason being is that any action that can be done because of race can be done for another reason, and it is outright dishonest to misrepresent actions taken towards a person as motivated by the group that person is a part of solely because that person is part of that group. The very concept deprives people of their individuality and their ability to be judged as such, and is itself benevolent sexism/racism/whatever.
 

Firefilm

New member
May 27, 2011
1,801
0
0
It's insulting to both men and women. It makes the statement that women are so feeble they require a leg up from a man to succeed and they make the statement that men aren't welcome as an audience.

Myself, I do not plan to see this film at the cinema. I respect both women and men, more than that.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
JimB said:
Lightknight said:
No one has to get 'screwed.' John or Jane can get hired because they're the best candidate for the role and the one that doesn't get hired isn't hired because they weren't.
This is all getting very abstract. What specific role do you think John and Jane are qualified for but one more than the other for reasons that have nothing to do with either actor's sex?
Let's say one is a stronger actor or has more experience in a specific role than the other. It's all about qualifications and skill. Not all acting is the same.

If John is the more skilled actor but doesn't get hired because he's a dude, it's just as sexist as if Jane is the more skilled one and doesn't get hired because she's a female.

Of course, you may always have source material that specifies gender and the look of the character. Harry Potter casting "Jane" as Harry would then be a bit weird but not unethical/sexist if she was the best candidate. In most circumstances though, you'd assume that a male would do a better job at portraying a male (and vice versa with females portraying females). So it's at least a legitimate qualification in that scenario.

It can be if the formulae are such that only one woman per movie gets a speaking role.
Cool, you're pointing out another point of sexism. Doesn't detract from other instances of sexism, it just piles on.

I'm not saying either instance are acceptable. So you continuing to point out red herrings just isn't going to stick on me here.

Yes, because I, at least, am talking about the environment it's in. It's still fair to talk about global warming during a day when it's cold outside.
Look, these are two different statements:

Macro: Women aren't cast in proportionate numbers and deserve better representation.
Micro: John shouldn't be hired because he has a dick. Hire Jane instead because she's female.

The first comment is discussing the merits of equality. The second comment is just sexist discrimination.

More like social inertia.
Or, how about the fact that due to men getting pumped with testosterone we are more prone to enjoying action flicks while women aren't nearly as much and thus those kinds of movies are more catered to males?

That is social inertia, but social inertia isn't a bad thing as long as the thing causing it hasn't changed.

"Likely?" How likely?
Males who have been castrated are less aggressive and do not tend towards violence.

It's likely, but I don't now of a study that breaks down castrated male preferences in movie genre.

Do you disagree that aggressiveness of the viewer increases the likelihood that said viewer will enjoy aggression in movies?

And are women more likely to see these kinds of movies out of preference, or because they're being sent signals of exclusion from the other genres?
Are women more nurturing because society encourages that or is it biological?

To know the difference you'd need to take a survey of action films in which women are the leads and pass the test. Figure out the average audience demographics and then compare with a comparable movie (similar budget, plot, etc) in the same genre that has a male lead and does/doesn't pass the test.

Until then, I only have studies showing differences in how genders respond to depictions of violence, women respond negatively and in the examples of something like video games even feel guilt over their actions.

Regardless, even removing the movies themselves and breaking them up into elements of film we find stark differences in what factors men and women prefer in their movies at all:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8647544/Men-and-women-should-never-watch-films-together-research-shows.html

Here's a fascinating work on the difference between men and women regarding violence/aggression:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/wZXD4ZASNg4bU/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231?siteid=arjournals&keytype=ref&

"Males and females differ in aggressive tendencies, especially in the most violent behaviors of homicide and aggravated assault. The ratio of male to female murderers in the United States is about 10:1 (FBI 1951?1999). Laboratory studies often show the same type of sex effect, but provocation dramatically reduces sex differences in physical aggression, and specific types of provocation differentially affect male and female aggression (Bettencourt & Miller 1996). The preferred types of aggression also differ for males and females. Males prefer direct aggression, whereas females prefer indirect aggression (e.g., Oesterman et al. 1998). Developmental research suggests that many of these differences result from different socialization experiences (White 2001). However, evolutionary explanations of some key gender differences also have received empirical support (Buss & Shackelford 1997, Campbell 1999, Geary 1998). For example, males are more upset by sexual infidelity of their mates than by emotional infidelity, whereas the opposite pattern occurs for females (Geary et al. 1995). In all of these examples, our understanding of sex differences in aggression is greatly enhanced by the discovery of differential affective reactions."

We are simply very different socially and biologically in regards to aggression. That's not a bad thing, both tendencies have their benefits and detractors.

Lightknight said:
To assume that every company is catering towards men in the action films out of a sense of past is to disregard all the independent thinkers of the industry and the business savvy they've consistently displayed.
I didn't say that, but thank you for the cautionary tale, I guess.
To use your term against you: "Social Inertia". How is that not "catering towards men in the action films out of a sense of past"?

Lightknight said:
Quick Google definition: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
Definition of equal: the same as.
Cool. And yet we were discussing equality. Not quite as bad as confusing "object" with "Objectification" but close.

Equality includes fairness. Ergo it can be used synonymously with Equity.

Semantics are fun but in this particular discussion it isn't being productive.

Then I don't understand what you're arguing against, if you're saying one movie out of however many millions of movies that have been made to this point is restacking the deck.
Every instance of intentional sexism should be decried. Sorry if you don't think it should just because you agree with the outcome but that is exactly the sort of mentality that makes a fair playing field so hard to accomplish. The pendulum just keeps swinging to one side or the other and as long as people keep pulling it back and forth it has no opportunity to eventually even out. Shame on us, to try and fight inequality with inequality, sexism with sexism. No ever wins with this.