Wonder Woman Loses Director Because of "Creative Differences"

[MonsterCrit]

My point is that basing the choice of director on gender as opposed to ability is sexist. It is assumed that a woman is more in touch with women's issues than a man. That's an assumption.

No, it's common sense that women generally understand women's issues better than men... because they're women. This is where you're making yourself look unreasonable. Consider my earlier Mexican example: is it reasonable to suggest that some foreigners will understand Mexican culture better than an actual Mexican, absolutely - no question. Is it racist to focus on the Mexican talent when looking for a director for your Mexican culture movie? No, that's ridiculous. You're gonna have more luck finding what you're after by focusing on Mexicans, because they're Mexicans.

Again you're confusing 'Common Assumption' with 'Common Sense'. Just as there are british and french people who have more knowledge of American History than many Americans. Being native to the culture doesn't inherently grant you more insight than say someone who has actively studied the culture. In fact quite oddly an outsider perspective on the culture tends to be more complete since there are no prebuilt biases or misinformation that needs to be overcome. So again.. yes your example is Racist and my point is, that basing a decision for directing on gender is still sexist. Even if it makes sense or yields the results you want, it's still sexist because you never gave the other side a chance to prove they could do just as good a job if not better. Again keep in for more than half of her run. WOnder Woman's comics have been written and edited by men. And quite a few novels enjoyed and targeted to men withe male protagonists are have been written by women. Heck that's the same sort of sentiment and preconception that had Mary Shelly publish FGrankenstein under a Pseudonym .


That was the thrust of my statement and the way WB worded the statement namely that they mentioned that they wanted a female director. See they didn't use, talented, experienced, proven, visionary as the qualifying adjective, they used gender. Did they use poor wording in the statement, highly probable.

 

[Yuuki]

While certainly not true in an absolute sense, a woman is generally going to be more familiar with women's issues than a man, and vice versa. If the studio cared about producing a movie that spoke to women's issues it's going to be a much safer bet going with a female director.

I want to see a movie about Wonder Woman being Wonder Woman. A movie with interesting story, characters, good actors and high production value.

If I wanted to see a movie about "women's issues" I'd go to a goddamn feminism seminar. If I get even the slightest hint that WB are trying to revolve the movie the "issues of women" they can forget about getting my money.

The 2009 animated adaptation was enough, with Diana and the Amazons coming across as crazed Tumblr feminists throughout the whole thing.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Wouldnt it be ironic if she left due to sexism? Thing is this movie isnt so difficult to make. I wonder if they just are not brave enough to go fall on strange and make it. Look at Thor, that had all that gods and Asgard stuff and it worked well. I wonder if DC arent prepared to trust the material and make it work in its own world instead of trying to fit their grimdark reality version of the movies.

 

[GladiatorUA]

DC/WB should hire Whedon as ghost writer/director. He loves this kind of character and has experience of fleshing it out.

Black Widow stood out in a good way in Avengers. She was, basically, a lead character in the first half of the movie and had a lot of great scenes. Both straightforwardly badass and more subtly intense(her and Banner in India(?), her and caged Loki on the Helicarrier). Compared to Cap2, which wasn't as crowded, Black Widow felt much more well written in Avengers.

At least secretly hire him to consult.

 

[NoeL]

Just as there are british and french people who have more knowledge of American History than many Americans. Being native to the culture doesn't inherently grant you more insight than say someone who has actively studied the culture.

False equivalency, and a strawman of my argument. An average American isn't typically engaged with American history in the same way a woman is engaged with being a woman and a Mexican is engaged with their culture. Nevertheless it's still a common sense assumption that someone who was taught American history growing up (for example an American) is generally going to be more familiar with it than people that didn't learn it.

In fact quite oddly an outsider perspective on the culture tends to be more complete since there are no prebuilt biases or misinformation that needs to be overcome. So again.. yes your example is Racist

I'm going to have to assume, given your counter-example, that you misunderstood "Mexican culture" as "Mexican history", because otherwise I don't see how you can possibly call my argument racist and maintain a straight face.

Even if it makes sense or yields the results you want, it's still sexist because you never gave the other side a chance to prove they could do just as good a job if not better.

No, that's not what sexism is. Not at all.

Again keep in for more than half of her run. WOnder Woman's comics have been written and edited by men.

You made that point before and I simply didn't address it because it was irrelevant, but since you brought it up again I'll just say it: that point is irrelevant. It assumes WB wants to portray her just as she's been portrayed in the comics, or that the male writers have delivered the depth WB believes they need a woman for. Since we can't gauge any of these assumptions the point is moot.

I want to see a movie about Wonder Woman being Wonder Woman. A movie with interesting story, characters, good actors and high production value.

If I wanted to see a movie about "women's issues" I'd go to a goddamn feminism seminar. If I get even the slightest hint that WB are trying to revolve the movie the "issues of women" they can forget about getting my money.

The 2009 animated adaptation was enough, with Diana and the Amazons coming across as crazed Tumblr feminists throughout the whole thing.

Glad to hear you're so passionate about feminism! That, however, wasn't even close to what I was referring to. If you're interested in clarification you can go back and read my other comments in this thread.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Just as there are british and french people who have more knowledge of American History than many Americans. Being native to the culture doesn't inherently grant you more insight than say someone who has actively studied the culture.

False equivalency, and a strawman of my argument. An average American isn't typically engaged with American history in the same way a woman is engaged with being a woman and a Mexican is engaged with their culture. Nevertheless it's still a common sense assumption that someone who was taught American history growing up (for example an American) is generally going to be more familiar with it than people that didn't learn it.

A woman doesn't think about being a woman though neither does a mexican think about being a mexican. When you are immersed and a part of a culture you aren't as aware of the cause and effect relationships that define your own culture.. Someone outside the culture studying is more apt to see it. DIfference between an eye on the ground and an eye in the sky.

In fact quite oddly an outsider perspective on the culture tends to be more complete since there are no prebuilt biases or misinformation that needs to be overcome. So again.. yes your example is Racist

I'm going to have to assume, given your counter-example, that you misunderstood "Mexican culture" as "Mexican history", because otherwise I don't see how you can possibly call my argument racist and maintain a straight face.

You can't exactly separate culture from history. Each defines the other. I call it racist because yin your argument you are showing favouritism to someone based on their race and your assumptions based upon their race as opposed to their actual ability.

Even if it makes sense or yields the results you want, it's still sexist because you never gave the other side a chance to prove they could do just as good a job if not better.

No, that's not what sexism is. Not at all.

Sexism. SHowing discrimination or favouritism to an individual or group based on their gender. Or do you have another definition of sexism you would like to share?

Again keep in for more than half of her run. WOnder Woman's comics have been written and edited by men.

You made that point before and I simply didn't address it because it was irrelevant, but since you brought it up again I'll just say it: that point is irrelevant. It assumes WB wants to portray her just as she's been portrayed in the comics, or that the male writers have delivered the depth WB believes they need a woman for. Since we can't gauge any of these assumptions the point is moot.

A point you are unable to put down isn't moot because you say it is. It basically speaks to the simple point. Men are just as capable of writing and producing material geared towards women as women are capable of capable of producing material for men. So a male director can be just as capable of directing a film geared toward women as a woman is capable of directing a film geared towards men. Prove me wrong if you can.

As said, sexism cuts both ways. Once you start biasing yourself based on preconceived notions and assumptions based on gender you are being sexist. I mean we haven't even touched on the grey area that is the emergent fact that gender and sexual identity are not linked and operate on a spectrum rather than the binary model. Some women identify more with the opposite gender than their own, likewise for men. So yeah, world isn't black and white in these things,. hence the fair and best way is to go by someone's provenm ability..

If the person with the best proven ability i a woman, no problem, if it's a man no problem.

 

[NoeL]

I missed this in your earlier post, but:

See they didn't use, talented, experienced, proven, visionary as the qualifying adjective, they used gender.

How unreasonable do you have to be to not assume all those things are a given? Does a movie studio really need to qualify they're looking for a talented director to handle their multimillion dollar project? Do you honestly believe they're stating they'd rather give the project to an untalented, inexperienced, unproven, unvisionary woman over a talented, experienced, proven, visionary man?

A woman doesn't think about being a woman though neither does a mexican think about being a mexican. When you are immersed and a part of a culture you aren't as aware of the cause and effect relationships that define your own culture.. Someone outside the culture studying is more apt to see it. DIfference between an eye on the ground and an eye in the sky.

A perfectly fair point, but excluding those that have studied a person with life experience is still a better bet than a person without. It's fair to say that if WB is after a gender-realistic portrayal of WW then finding a director well versed in gender studies is more important than finding a woman.

You can't exactly separate culture from history. Each defines the other. I call it racist because yin your argument you are showing favouritism to someone based on their race and your assumptions based upon their race as opposed to their actual ability.

No I'm not. Please take the time to understand my position before replying because I'm not interested in your strawmen. To repeat what I've already said, I'm not suggesting they sacrifice ability just to get a female/Mexican director, I'm suggesting they're more likely to find an able director by focussing their attention on a group of people that are more likely to have the knowledge they want to translate to film.

Sexism. SHowing discrimination or favouritism to an individual or group based on their gender. Or do you have another definition of sexism you would like to share?

Yes - unreasonable discrimination or favouritism based on gender. But regardless, I called it out as not being sexist because it's not what WB are doing (at least in my opinion). They're not discriminating based on gender, they're discriminating based on who's more likely to have the aptitude. But again, since we don't actually know WB's motivations we can't say who's right. I just think my interpretation is much more reasonable than "they're just sexist".

A point you are unable to put down isn't moot because you say it is. It basically speaks to the simple point. Men are just as capable of writing and producing material geared towards women as women are capable of capable of producing material for men. So a male director can be just as capable of directing a film geared toward women as a woman is capable of directing a film geared towards men. Prove me wrong if you can.

Oh please, have some dignity when engaging in a discussion. Don't accuse the other party of being disingenuous - it only serves to make yourself look bad.

Again, to repeat myself, the "simple point" it speaks to is an irrelevant point (and interestingly is a completely different point to the point you're making now, which is also irrelevant). The fact Wonder Woman has been written by men doesn't mean those portrayals are a) good, b) just as likely to be good as if a woman wrote them, or c) in line with what WB is looking to do. Your second point - that "Men are just as capable of writing and producing material geared towards women as women are capable of capable[sic] of producing material for men" - is also irrelevant because it does nothing to address my point that a talented, experienced, proven, visionary, female director is more likely to portray a realistic female lead than a talented, experienced, proven, visionary male director because they have the additional experience of being a woman. To actually address my point you'd need to show that men are equally or more capable at producing realistic female characters - not just that some men can write realistic women, or that some women can't write realistic women. You made a good start pointing out that people immersed in a particular mindset may find it harder to see the forest from the trees, but this other road you're going down pointing to male WW authors and Mary Shelly isn't really serving any purpose.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Yawn *snip*

So what it boils down to:

According to your own internal 'Head-cannon' a female director is better than a male director at crafting films that tell the stories of female characters?

Surely with such a bold assertions you can offer some proof, or examples of such. Otherwise this might be confused as a manifestation of your own sexism.

And for the record 'Unreasonable' is a very finickey word. Because the party performing the action always feals they have a good reason for doing so. Whether or not others or the greater society share the reasoning is usually irrelevant to the person at the time. A racist can always use something to justify their beliefs, as do sexists and theists.

 

[NoeL]

According to your own internal 'Head-cannon' a female director is better than a male director at crafting films that tell the stories of female characters?

Surely with such a bold assertions you can offer some proof, or examples of such. Otherwise this might be confused as a manifestation of your own sexism.

I've already mentioned several examples of poorly written characters from the opposite sex: cliches like the fighting fuck toy or impossibly good-looking, unreasonably devoted male love interest, and Samus circa Other M. This article [http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/the-mixed-results-of-male-authors-writing-female-characters/273641/] gives several other examples of people failing to "get" the opposite sex when writing about them (and a few examples of successes), and cites literary critics and psychologists that acknowledge the difficulties in writing across gender. Anyone with any degree of misogynistic/misandristic biases (i.e. most people) is going to struggle to varying degrees, because how they view the opposite sex is not going to be consistent with how that sex views itself, and will therefore be unrelatable to them. I feel this is an entirely reasonable, common belief to hold. Do you dispute this point?

If not, then we can extrapolate that a male director crafting a film that tells the stories of female characters is going to have a harder time producing a realistic, relatable product than if he were writing about male characters. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's a more difficult task and thus has a higher chance of failing. By the same token, female directors are going to have an easier time producing a realistic, relatable story about female characters. Again, this isn't to say they can't fuck it up too, but they have a higher chance of success than men do.

Putting that all together, in general female directors are going to produce stories about female characters that are more realistic and relatable than male directors.

EDIT: Also, how can it possibly be a "manifestation of [my] own sexism" when I'm applying the same thing to both sexes?

 

[Lightknight]

Putting that all together, in general female directors are going to produce stories about female characters that are more realistic and relatable than male directors.

Realistic and relatable? This is about Wonder Woman.

Look, you're citing directors who have purposefully designed their female characters to be sexy and to be a draw for a male audience. This is what publishers want too, because there's good and consistent money in sexy.

What that isn't necessarily is a wild claim that directors can't direct a good film. You are making a sexist and unfounded claim here. Do you believe that there have been no legitimate movies directed by males featuring realistic women? Because there are quite a few that are great and were directed by men.

As far as films directed by women. Sure, they more typically take a plain-Jane attitude but they have absolutely been guilty of all the same things you've mentioned:

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls001899660/

A good director is capable of portraying perspectives and experiences that they know nothing about. That is literally their job most of the time. The difference here is that this studio is wanting people to make a legitimate female hero that isn't all tits and ass and that's really all you have to tell a director to give them direction so that they know.

The entertainment industry gets a free pass on their acting choices where discrimination is concerned. But they don't get a free pass on the staff. Them specifically hiring a female employee because of gender was discrimination and they should have gotten sued. But no one is going to do that and risk never working with them again. It is overt discrimination. Haven't we reached an era where we can finally just call bullshit whenever we see any instance of racism or sexism levied against anyone? This double standard nonsense really has to stop if we have any hope of actually achieving equality in society.

 

[NoeL]

Realistic and relatable? This is about Wonder Woman.

My discussion with MonsterCrit moved past Wonder Woman long ago, so no, the piece of text you quoted is not about Wonder Woman.

As for the rest of your post, again you seem to have misunderstood what our conversation is about and where it's ended up. I'll politely ask you to read our discussion and get yourself up to speed if you wish to contribute to it further.

 

[Cicada 5]

giving favouritism and preference is no less sexist than being discriminatory.

If they looked for a person capable of pulling of the project instead of one with a certain type of genitalia maybe they could actually go ahead with the project.

"The director MUST be female!" was already enough to douse my hopes and make me extremely skeptical of the movie.

I gotta disagree with you guys (particularly MonsterCrit). While certainly not true in an absolute sense, a woman is generally going to be more familiar with women's issues than a man, and vice versa. If the studio cared about producing a movie that spoke to women's issues it's going to be a much safer bet going with a female director. That's not say a man couldn't make that movie, but there's much more of a chance they'll royally fuck it up and come across as patronising/condescending (remember Metroid: Other M?). It's not sexist or discriminatory at all - it's them picking the right director for the kind of movie they want to make. If they wanted to make a movie that really spoke to Mexican cultural values, for example, getting a Mexican director on board is probably not a bad idea, and accusations of racism would be ridiculous.

EDIT: To be clear I'm not claiming to know WB's motivations for wanting a female director, just combating claims that they're necessarily "sexist" for doing so.

Look... women's issues aren't as much for Women as you think. OUtside certain biological issues, Men and Women face similar issues. Is paternal instinct any less or greater than maternal instinct. No. A father feels just as strongly connected to their child as the mother.. So unless the movie had a whole story arc devoted to Wonder Woman having her period... There's probably not going to be much in the way of WOmen's Issues.

Heck even more so for Wonder woman. You're talking about a character that grew up and developed in what amounts to a Mono-gendered society. Men were something they read about in books but never saw or experienced. She is a super powered amazon from Matriarchal society where men didn't exist ... WHat relation does her experience have to that of the average woman? Heck she has never experienced being looked down upon by the opposite gender and she has the strength to basically break the legs of anyone who would dare to be condescending to her.

You claim men and women have the same issues yet you also point out how Diana would be looked down upon for her gender. ANd her having the strength to beat up anyone who would will not make the experience anymore degrading. In the comics she has indeed faced such prejudice especially from the Olympians. Also, while Diana's origin story has her not having met men, that's not the same for the other Amazons. They were women who fled to Themyscira to escape persecution from men including Heracles who raped Diana's mother Hippolyta. The reason Diana tends to be more trusting of men is because she doesn't know what it's like to be victimized by a man like her mother and her people. This changes as she sees how unequal things are in 'Patriarch's world'.

 

[Cicada 5]

At this point, maybe DC could get Marvel to produce their movies?

I'm not going to see it. They are actually boasting about their sexual discrimination like it's a good thing (hiring a female to play a female role in a movie is not deemed sexual discrimination, hiring an employee purely because they're a desired sex is).

Besides, Wonder Woman has always been a terrible pick to round out the triumvirate. DC really needs to get a different heroine in the spotlight that isn't miss bondage with a boomerang tiara, bullet proof bracelets and a lasso. That may have flown in the 50s but now?

Wonder Woman has evolved beyond her initial portrayal just like all long running fictional characters. The Marston model hasn't defined the book for the decades despite people who think everything about the character begins and ends with the 40s comics. She wouldn't have lasted this long otherwise.

 

[Cicada 5]

While certainly not true in an absolute sense, a woman is generally going to be more familiar with women's issues than a man, and vice versa. If the studio cared about producing a movie that spoke to women's issues it's going to be a much safer bet going with a female director.

I want to see a movie about Wonder Woman being Wonder Woman. A movie with interesting story, characters, good actors and high production value.

If I wanted to see a movie about "women's issues" I'd go to a goddamn feminism seminar. If I get even the slightest hint that WB are trying to revolve the movie the "issues of women" they can forget about getting my money.

The 2009 animated adaptation was enough, with Diana and the Amazons coming across as crazed Tumblr feminists throughout the whole thing.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. No one hates the X-Men movies for dealing with (metaphorical) racism or the Dark Knight movies for dealing with things like poverty, corruption or class conflict. A Wonder Woman movie that deals with feminism and woman's issue should not be looked down upon. Also that animated movie had one of the least offensive portrayal of Diana and the Amazons I'd seen. Especially in light of the New 52.

 

[Lightknight]

Realistic and relatable? This is about Wonder Woman.

My discussion with MonsterCrit moved past Wonder Woman long ago, so no, the piece of text you quoted is not about Wonder Woman.

As for the rest of your post, again you seem to have misunderstood what our conversation is about and where it's ended up. I'll politely ask you to read our discussion and get yourself up to speed if you wish to contribute to it further.

You stated that female directors are more capable of directing movies with women characters.

Is that somehow not the case now? I responded to your latest post.

If not, then we can extrapolate that a male director crafting a film that tells the stories of female characters is going to have a harder time producing a realistic, relatable product than if he were writing about male characters"

It is stereotypical to say that no man can do as good of a job at this as a woman. Remember, in any job that requires any kind of physical exertion you could use exactly the same logic of it being potentially harder for women to not hire any. Sexism is still bad. That is where the sexism comes into play.

Now, I respectfully ask you to read my post in light of the vast majority of it being in response to your last post and the claims you made there. I don't care what you were talking about before. I care about what you just said and the merits of said comments.

 

[NoeL]

It is stereotypical to say that no man can do as good of a job at this as a woman.

As I said in my response to MonsterCrit I don't believe WB is necessarily saying this. I don't interpret their statement of looking for a female director as "no man can do as good of a job at this as a woman" but rather "we want this movie to to be crafted through a female lens" (and that goes faaaaaaar beyond "tits and ass", so I completely reject your oversimplication of the issue there). Them focusing their attention on the female talent first is simply an efficient way to find what they're looking for. But again, this is entirely speculation because I don't know WB's actual motives. I'm just saying you're not necessarily correct, and I'm of the opinion that you're not.

Remember, in any job that requires any kind of physical exertion you could use exactly the same logic of it being potentially harder for women to not hire any.

No you couldn't. You could use the same logic to focus your attention on men when scouting for prospective employees but doesn't permit you to refuse to hire women that are capable of doing the job.

Now, I respectfully ask you to read my post in light of the vast majority of it being in response to your last post and the claims you made there.

Sure.

Realistic and relatable? This is about Wonder Woman.

So? I don't know that much about Wonder Woman but I know she's frequently involved with JLA - an American organisation that's based in America and subject to American culture, and Americans see women in a particular way that the movie would need to match in order to be realistic and relatable. She needs to be portrayed as being treated in the same way Americans treat women (or wherever the film's setting takes place).

Look, you're citing directors who have purposefully designed their female characters to be sexy and to be a draw for a male audience. This is what publishers want too, because there's good and consistent money in sexy.

That's a fair point and I could have chosen my examples better, but I could just as easily point to many of the movies that fail the Bechdel test[footnote]In light of critics of the Bechdel test I'd just like to clarify for the purpose of avoiding confusion that I'm NOT arguing that the test is an accurate measure of a film's quality or level of misogyny - I'm only mentioning it because of the correlation between movies that feature poorly written female characters and movies that fail the test[/footnote] without selling sex for examples of poorly written/portrayed female characters at the hands of male writers/directors.

Do you believe that there have been no legitimate movies directed by males featuring realistic women?

I feel this question is far too patronising to deserve a genuine response but whatever: No I don't believe that - that would be absurd.

A good director is capable of portraying perspectives and experiences that they know nothing about. That is literally their job most of the time. The difference here is that this studio is wanting people to make a legitimate female hero that isn't all tits and ass and that's really all you have to tell a director to give them direction so that they know.

Like I said earlier, you're doing yourself a great disservice by reducing women's issues to "tits and ass". In fact what you said comes across as pretty damn insulting, as if not focussing on tits an ass is all it takes to make the character relatable.

Them specifically hiring a female employee because of gender was discrimination and they should have gotten sued.

Except a) you have no proof this actually happened (I've already pointed out how this isn't necessarily the case), and b) there's a thing called "bona fide occupational qualification" that grants discrimination if the job calls for it (and one could potentially argue that the job of crafting a film through a female lens is female-centric enough to legally discriminate against male applicants).

Haven't we reached an era where we can finally just call bullshit whenever we see any instance of racism or sexism levied against anyone? This double standard nonsense really has to stop if we have any hope of actually achieving equality in society.

Please don't tell me you were one of the people that cried "sexism!" when an all-female Ghostbusters movie was announced.

 

[MonsterCrit]

You claim men and women have the same issues yet you also point out how Diana would be looked down upon for her gender. ANd her having the strength to beat up anyone who would will not make the experience anymore degrading. In the comics she has indeed faced such prejudice especially from the Olympians. Also, while Diana's origin story has her not having met men, that's not the same for the other Amazons. They were women who fled to Themyscira to escape persecution from men including Heracles who raped Diana's mother Hippolyta. The reason Diana tends to be more trusting of men is because she doesn't know what it's like to be victimized by a man like her mother and her people. This changes as she sees how unequal things are in 'Patriarch's world'.

*sigh* Tell you what. You and others really need to stop buying into the divisionist BS that Society and culture has been wallowing in for the past 5000 years. So women get looked down upon and treated differently for their gender, sometimes it's benefit some times it's a handicap. Same for men. Beyond a man never knowing what CHild birth feels like and a woman never knowing what a kick to the nuts feels like.. The issues men and women deal with are virtually the same. Sure a man may not get looked down upon because of their gender but guess what, but guess what, being discriminated against based on one's gender doesn't feel any different than being discriminated against because of ones, race, nationality, sexuality, class, theology or physiology. So the idea that Women have issues that Men will never understand. BS with the previously mentioned exceptions that are directly linked to physiology. Every issue a woman faces a man has faced similar.

The reason this is still an issue is because society allows it self to believe that there is a difference.. The first step to in equality starts with the illusion of difference. The first step to equality is realizing that the differences are superficial at best and that you're all the same.

And secondly, We are not going to watch a WOnder Woman movie about women's issues. We're going to see an amazon hurl a jeep at a a bunch of goons while deflecting bullets. Probably while riding a giant tiger.

 

[Cicada 5]

You claim men and women have the same issues yet you also point out how Diana would be looked down upon for her gender. ANd her having the strength to beat up anyone who would will not make the experience anymore degrading. In the comics she has indeed faced such prejudice especially from the Olympians. Also, while Diana's origin story has her not having met men, that's not the same for the other Amazons. They were women who fled to Themyscira to escape persecution from men including Heracles who raped Diana's mother Hippolyta. The reason Diana tends to be more trusting of men is because she doesn't know what it's like to be victimized by a man like her mother and her people. This changes as she sees how unequal things are in 'Patriarch's world'.

*sigh* Tell you what. You and others really need to stop buying into the divisionist BS that Society and culture has been wallowing in for the past 5000 years. So women get looked down upon and treated differently for their gender, sometimes it's benefit some times it's a handicap. Same for men. Beyond a man never knowing what CHild birth feels like and a woman never knowing what a kick to the nuts feels like.. The issues men and women deal with are virtually the same. Sure a man may not get looked down upon because of their gender but guess what, but guess what, being discriminated against based on one's gender doesn't feel any different than being discriminated against because of ones, race, nationality, sexuality, class, theology or physiology. So the idea that Women have issues that Men will never understand. BS with the previously mentioned exceptions that are directly linked to physiology. Every issue a woman faces a man has faced similar.

The reason this is still an issue is because society allows it self to believe that there is a difference.. The first step to in equality starts with the illusion of difference. The first step to equality is realizing that the differences are superficial at best and that you're all the same.

And secondly, We are not going to watch a WOnder Woman movie about women's issues. We're going to see an amazon hurl a jeep at a a bunch of goons while deflecting bullets. Probably while riding a giant tiger.

Again you cannot claim that men and women face the exact same problems while also pointing out ways in which they do not. And what you pointed out doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. An African American woman in the workplace, for instance, would have to deal with sexism from her co-workers as well as the racism that is prevalent. There are women who will be called all manner of degradatory names by men for having multiple sex partners while those same men high five a guy for doing the same. And we're just talking about the U.S here. There are still countries in the world were women are second class citizens at worst.

The only comment of yours that I agree with is that we need to acknowledge all people deserve to be treated fairly regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or nationality. However, you make the mistake of not realizing that it is not simply a case of people holding hands and singing kumbaya. It is not merely the victims of inequality who still think there are differences, it's the ones with privilege, the ones who have benefited from a system of inequality.

Furthermore, I don't see why a WW movie can't be about more than an Amazon throwing a jeep.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Again you cannot claim that men and women face the exact same problems while also pointing out ways in which they do not. And what you pointed out doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. An African American woman in the workplace, for instance, would have to deal with sexism from her co-workers as well as the racism that is prevalent.

That only holds true... in America. Believe it or not there's a fair chunk of the world where the scenario is reversed.

There are women who will be called all manner of degradatory names by men for having multiple sex partners while those same men high five a guy for doing the same.

And where do you think the root of all that stems from. HEre's an interesting fact. A woman can be raped by a man. Most countries in the world acknowledge that crime. You would be rather surprised to know how many countries do NOT acknowledge that a man can be raped by a woman. If a couple is attacked if the woman runs away leaving the man to face the attacker... no one will blame or speak ill of her even if the man dies.

However if the man runs and leaves the woman to face the attacker, woman could be veteran MMA fighter or a green beret. That man is still going to be branded a spineless coward by society and if the woman died as a result well it's doubly bad for him.

See double standards cut both ways. The root cause of double standards being that we internalize a 'them' and 'us' mentality., Where does that stem from. Seeing the other part and classifying them by their differences. The way out of that trap. Seeing things as they are and being blind to race, gender, sexuality, theology. In short judge people by their ability and personalities.

Which has been the thrust of my argument.. The director that directs should be the director that has the best proven ability to create a good movie within the genre.

Furthermore, I don't see why a WW movie can't be about more than an Amazon throwing a jeep.

It doesn't have to be. She can also wield a flailing raptor as a melee weapon against a group of ninjas... in a helicopter.