Posts tagged ‘misogyny’

July 24, 2008

Flicks and Lit For Boys and Girls

Bitch Ph.D. explains The Bechdel Rule:

The rule is that movies should have 1) at least two women, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something other than a man.

. . . Few movies pass the Bechdel test–most of the dialogue happens between men, or between men and one woman. Most movies who have extended conversations between women tend to be under the umbrella of “chick flicks,” or the newly-minted term, “RomComs.” But even those movies don’t pass the Bechdel test; not only are the conversations about men, the movies are driven by what men do or don’t do, what they want or don’t want, even when all the principal characters are women.

Movies, yes, and television, and this rule should also really be applied to plays. I mean, it is just incredible how few women are in anything, and how little they do when they’re there. What they mostly do is (a) be all about the men in the thing, and (b) be the one to blame for everything that goes wrong. Women are almost always the “out” for why there’s a problem – it’s the mom’s fault because she tries to smother everyone because she’s timid, controlling and Puritanical. Or, it’s the girlfriend’s fault because she tries to smother her boyfriend because she’s controlling, domineering, bitchy and usually whorish. Or whatever. When the question is, what’s wrong with this swell male protagonist’s life, the answer is almost always a hysterical, shrewish, controlling woman.

The amazing thing is, you can point this out to men who write or do comedy, and they’ll agree with you and talk about how they are very careful not to do that, and really enjoy writing strong, sympathetic female characters, and then you read their stuff…and the women are all hysterical, shrewish, controlling bitches (I’m sure that the writers of Everybody Loves Raymond fully believe that the characters of Deborah and Marie are sympathetic, whereas to me, that show is a perfect example, among many, of women being horrid, unreasonable, humorless nags for no reason).

Obviously, until women start writing everything, we’re going to be stuck playing unreasonable, stupid, evil bitches on the one hand, or boring, sweet, ever-affectionate straight-men on the other.

I’ve been watching DVDs of ‘It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia’ lately (which is hilarious), and I just watched a special features short where the cast was talking about casting Kaitlin Olson as Sweet D, and what they mostly talk about is how these three guys had written this show, and all the one female character did in it was be like, ‘You guys!’ all the time. And they didn’t like that, and Olson wouldn’t take the part if it was like that. It took them awhile to convince her to take the job. On her final audition, she read a hilarious scene and decided to do it, because she had so much fun at that audition. Except, she found out at the bar later that the scene was actually between two of the male characters – they were all like, ‘oh, well, yeah, we didn’t have anything interesting written for Sweet D to audition you with, so we had you read a guy part. But you won’t be doing that in the actual show.’

Eventually, however, they did make an effort to write that part in a more comedic way – in large part, I’m sure, because it’s obvious Olson is not at all afraid to say what she thinks about things, and she seems to flat out refuse to be pushed into a boring, supporting role, which is awesome. She’s one of my heroes now.

Women are used to being interested in movies, books, plays and so forth that are by men, starring men and all about men. I love all kinds of culture that’s aimed at men and meant to appeal to them. All women can get into dude-flicks or dude-lit (oops, there’s no equivalent condescending term to use), and even patiently overlook the blatant misogyny it almost always contains. But just hint to a guy that he try watching, reading or enjoying anything at all that is written by, staring and/or primarily about women (whether it’s truly silly and superficial on its own merits, or merely automatically dismissed as silly just because it’s concerned with women), and he’ll immediately dismiss it on all levels and call you a fool for liking it yourself.

Because women are niche. Even though we constitute the majority of the population.

Oh, and while I’m on this subject Estelle Getty has died.  Here’s Feministe on Golden Girls:

Where else have you seen a popular sitcom (or any show) that revolves around women who actually kind of look like average women, who aren’t young and fabulous and beautiful, who have interests other than finding male companionship, who put their female friendships first, and who have sex after menopause? More to the point, where can you find a TV show or movie that revolves around women like that, and those women aren’t the butt of the joke?

It’s certainly a rarity, and Golden Girls remains a bright spot in TV history. Estelle Getty was a class act.

January 19, 2008

Another Freaking Links Post…with Videos!

Okay, I promise I’m not going to start doing this all the time, but I have to post a few more links.

First of all, this is kind of fun: a collection of videos of various female political leaders through the years.

I don’t generally watch news on television, so I was pretty much unaware of Chris Matthews until everyone started printing and reprinting his outrageous statements about Clinton, which seriously, I can’t believe he’s retained his employment, and MSNBC should be ashamed. But more generally, here’s what I don’t get: if I were a man who did not want a woman to be president (or even just not this particular woman), I would tiptoe around saying anything even remotely approaching misogyny, because I would not want to remind the female voters in America right at this crucial moment that they are still living in a very sexist country. What is with people? Don’t they get that woman-bashing right now will certainly mobilize women to vote for a woman? Or are they just so gosh-darn furious at the very notion of a woman running for our country’s highest office that not even self-interest can shut them up? Well, I guess any variety of bigotry is a product of unintelligence in the first place, so I ought not to be surprised. (In case you’ve only witnessed Matthews’ most recent “tough and provocative”* criticism of Clinton, and the resultant apology, check out his history of ridiculous comments to a wide variety of female guests on his show.)

*(his words)

And on a far stupider topic, I am a huge fan of each new exposure of Scientology for the disgusting load that it is. Not only is it a bullshit cult, but its teachings are racist and hateful (here are some fantastic quotes from the founder on the subject of race). It is not just harmless craziness. So, yay to Gawker for hosting the Tom Cruise video.

Also, this document – tips for reporters on how best to interview Beck – fascinates me (note: I have absolutely no idea how credible this article is; I just remembered it being linked to all over the web a few years back, and I think it’s hilarious.)

So, I guess this links post could be summed up as “really moronic things I ought to just ignore, but am so continually needled by that I just can’t quite leave them alone.”

But perhaps that’s as it should be: apparently, the things that I consider interesting and important grow more irrelevant by the day.

October 9, 2007

I Hate Ads III

When it comes to ads for women’s products, just in general, this is how I picture the creative team’s meeting:

“Okay. We need this spot to appeal to women. Does anyone have any theories about what women might do?”

“Uh, sit around and talk to each other?”

“Shop?”

“Date men?”

“Okay, great ideas, everyone. I, too, think women must do these sorts of things. Does anyone have any clue as to what women might talk about when they are together?”

“I think they mostly must talk about the fact that they’re women.”

“And that they wear women’s clothes, and use women’s products!”

“And men.”

“Great! Yes, I also assume that women mostly discuss the fact that they are women. I know that if I were a woman, I would never get over the shock of it, and would talk about it all the damn time. Let’s make this ad be women sitting around talking about that they’re women, and so they are able to wear women’s things and also sleep with men.”

Because that’s the only possible explanation I can think of for women’s ads:

“You’re women, girls! You like feminine things for women! Like these razors! Which are pink, and are not razors for men! Let’s see what these women have to say:

‘It’s great! It’s a razor for women! And I am a woman! Awesome!’

Yep, these are women’s razors, ladies. And you, as women, deserve them. Don’t let your boyfriend steal your pink razor, because this razor is for you! And will give you smooth legs. For him.”

One ad in this category is the Yoplait ad in which two young women at a wedding discuss how good the yogurt is. I have a theory about how this ad was written. Here’s the ad in its original form:

“This yogurt is like cute best man good.”

“No, it’s like pretty dress good.”

“No, it’s like spike heels good.”

“No, it’s like catching the bouquet good.”

Then, someone at the meeting said, “oh, but we’re trying to cater to today’s young independent women. You know, they’re not really into getting married, and would probably discuss something other than that.”

And so they rewrote the ad as follows:

“This yogurt is like cute best man good.”

“No, it’s like burning this dress good.”

“No, it’s like getting these shoes off good.”

“No, it’s like not catching the bouquet good.”

Done!

There is one ad out there right now that goes in entirely the opposite direction. It’s a brief ad for a pregnancy test, and the focus is entirely on the pregnancy test wand looming out of a chrome-background, with slanted lighting and a symphonic build-up in the score, and a (male!) voiceover says something like, “Introducing…the most effective pregnancy yadda-yah in blah.” The pregnancy test could just as easily be a screwdriver or a Mach-III razor, or a cell phone. The ad is really jarring when you realize that it is, in fact, a pregnancy test, because everything about it is so completely unfeminine. And for that, I love it.

[Incidentally, I have so, so many ideas for utterly inappropriate, yet freaking awesome birth control advertisements, and I really wish that someone would hire me to make them, because all current ads for birth control just could not be more terrible (Yaz). Like, the ad would feature women being really disgusted and annoyed by screaming babies on the subway, or having to hold their friend's baby, or whatever, and the birth control box is pictured, and it has a picture of a baby with an X over it, and the tagline could be, "Make sure it never happens to you."]

To be fair, lately there have been more and more ads for men’s products that are chiefly about men being men and not women, but in addition, these ads mostly include the assumption that men would not use women’s products, because women are freaking retarded and no guy in his right mind would touch anything a stupid woman might like. The most obvious example of this is that (admittedly very old) Burger King ad, where a throng of men stride around in the street, doing manly things like throwing a truck off a bridge, ripping their underwear right out of their pants, and singing about how they wouldn’t settle for “chick food.” I was actually unaware that there even was sex-specific “women’s food.” I’ve just been eating non-gender-specific food all this time. I hope I don’t die.

And now, here’s this Centrum vitamin ad, in which a voiceover says something like, “If you’re a man over 50, do you think you should be taking the same multivitamin as a woman takes?”

“I don’t think so!” replies a graying fellow on a golf course, before thwacking a ball in self-satisfaction. I have not heard many 50+ men speak of women in general with such knee-jerk distaste, that reaction being more common in boys of twelve. Presumably, the man is a confirmed bachelor and is golfing at a men’s only club, which features a big sign on the front gate reading, ‘No Girlz Alowed!’

[Since writing this, I've seen the companion ad, in which an older woman is asked if she thinks she should be taking the same multivitamin as a man. "Do I have a choice?" she replies, nervously chewing her lip.]

I don’t understand why advertisements for gender-specific products think the only way to appeal to possible consumers is by denigrating whatever sex the product is not for, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument, that that’s the only way it’s done. Fine. But it’s one thing to appeal to men by running down women if you only want men to buy your product. If I’m alienated by an ad, I just think, ‘well, they’re not advertising to me. They don’t want my money, so I won’t spend it on them.’ I feel this way about Twix, which has just thrown up a ton of ads in which eating Twix saves some cheating guy from being busted by his girlfriend, and other things about how men are scamps and need Twix’s help to hide this from their significant others. “Need a moment (to think up a good lie)? Twix! The adultery-masker!” I assume that Twix has done its market research and has determined that men are their most important consumers, and that they can afford to lose the business of whatever women are buying Twix. Beer companies have always assumed that they could sacrifice any money women might be spending on beer, and their advertisements entirely appeal to men (again, almost exclusively by objectifying and degrading women, because how else could you possibly appeal to a man other than by running down women, right?). Or perhaps they gauged (in my case, correctly) that beer is so important to women that they’ll buy it anyway, no matter how offensive to them the advertising is.

But what really gets me is when a company runs some ads insulting women, and other ads catering to them. Burger King used to run an ad all about their grilled chicken sandwich and so forth, and how some woman wanted to go there on a date for that. I don’t really remember; I just recall the ad was aimed at “chicks.” And now they’ve got this ad where a giant, anthropomorphic chicken sandwich is a sort of Lothario, seducing all the women in an unfortunate anthropomorphic burger’s life, including his preteen daughter. The ad is clearly aimed at men, but it’s about how women like chicken (because one thing that fast food companies all seem to believe wholeheartedly is that chicken is for women and beef is for men, just as pink is for girls and blue is for boys). Does Burger King really think that women are so stupid that they won’t notice that the same company that’s begging for their business in certain spots is insulting them in others (or doing both simultaneously in the same ad)?

Miller Lite might get away with this, but a chicken sandwich doesn’t get you drunk. Screw you, Burger King.

More:

I Hate Ads VI

I Hate Ads V

I Hate Ads IV

I Hate Ads II

I Hate Ads

April 3, 2007

Sometimes the World Seems a Lot More Fixable…

…like when you discover all of the ads you hate are actually created by the same company.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers