Gender Roles & Identity in contemporary society

[DarthSkywalker]

No one said it's easy especially in occupations that women don't gravitate towards too as much as men. Thing is though guys aren't simply going to step aside for the sake of fairness. It's always going to be a competition.

Which is why the amount of men and women go to film school is the same. Makes perfect sense...

I love how generations of women being told to do by a society led by men has nothing to do with this. It is somehow coded in their DNA to not want to make art. That makes way more sense, considering they didn't have the right to vote until... oh yeah. It doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Snow Queen]

I love Sarah Connor and Ripley (in both the first two films) and...well, Beatrix exists. But one thing that always bugs me a bit as a pattern is that their conflict (with the exception of Ripley in the first Alien, my preferred of the bunch) comes down to being moms. And I can see how it gets there, and I think it works just fine in the films themselves. It's not a problem with them individually and doesn't stop me from loving Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens and...noticing that Kill Bill also exists. But when someone like James Cameron wants to posit himself as the arbiter of what women in film should look like, it seems to me his only two female characters that I would consider noteworthy are cut from the same mold. And that's fine, they're both well done characters, but I'd hate for every female lead to be like that. Variety is the spice of life and all that. One of the things I appreciated most about Wonder Woman is it gave it's lead a character arc that touched on some more women-centric ideas and broader themes, all wrapped up in a bit of the Superman mold. I look forward to more stories like that, and though I love most of the prior characters and respect their place in film history, a little less about children they have, had, or will have.

 

[jmc]

Which is why the amount of men and women go to film school. Makes perfect sense...

I love how generations of women being told to do by a society led by men has nothing to do with this. It is somehow coded in their DNA to not want to make art. That makes way more sense, considering they didn't have the right to vote until... oh yeah. It doesn't make sense at all.

None of this quote actually makes sense and has zero to do with what I said. Regardless, I don't know what world people are living who think girls for the last 30 years haven't been encouraged to take up jobs in male lead industries. I can remember nothing but girls being encouraged 15-20 years ago at school to go into IT and computer related jobs because that was the future. The issue is no-one seems to want to accept that there's always going to be industries that appeal more to one sex than the other, which will naturally result in an unfair situation for the sex that makes up the minority. Encouraging people to explore multiple avenues in terms of career is fine especially for those who aren't sure of what they want to do, but at the end of the day if people are given the choice to do as they please that means you're going to get unequal results one way or another.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

None of this quote actually makes sense and has zero to do with what I said. Regardless, I don't know what world people are living who think girls for the last 30 years haven't been encouraged to take up jobs in male lead industries. I can remember nothing but girls being encouraged 15-20 years ago at school to go into IT and computer related jobs because that was the future. The issue is no-one seems to want to accept that there's always going to be industries that appeal more to one sex than the other, which will naturally result in an unfair situation for the sex that makes up the minority. Encouraging people to explore multiple avenues in terms of career is fine especially for those who aren't sure of what they want to do, but at the end of the day if people are given the choice to do as they please that means you're going to get unequal results one way or another.

You have multiple post in this thread. When ever you write something like that, it goes back to your very weird argument that men and women gravitate to different things based on their sex. Which completely removes how society has setup a system where men are in power and women have spend thousands of years being told where there place is.

It is all nice to say women have been "encouraged". But when so many of these jobs go to someone who knows someone, that doesn't really work out, does it?

 

[MaceB]

None of this quote actually makes sense and has zero to do with what I said. Regardless, I don't know what world people are living who think girls for the last 30 years haven't been encouraged to take up jobs in male lead industries. I can remember nothing but girls being encouraged 15-20 years ago at school to go into IT and computer related jobs because that was the future. The issue is no-one seems to want to accept that there's always going to be industries that appeal more to one sex than the other, which will naturally result in an unfair situation for the sex that makes up the minority. Encouraging people to explore multiple avenues in terms of career is fine especially for those who aren't sure of what they want to do, but at the end of the day if people are given the choice to do as they please that means you're going to get unequal results one way or another.

And 30 years of progress is enough to erase centuries upon centuries of disenfranchisement to you?

The point is that a lot of women choose out of particular careers for cultural and sociopolitical reasons.. not personal ones. It's not inherent to womanhood that they are less good at numbers or not suited for action sports... for instance... that's a social construction that women are taught, and which then becomes a reality.

 

[OutOfBoose]

She's not though. She's not really sexualized in the movie at all. Yes - she is beautiful, but the movie pretty much never sexualizes her or reduces her down to her sexuality or flaunts her to get a sexualized male reaction. Meghan Fox in Transformers? Yep... that happened. But Wonder Woman? Not really, IMO.

The movie doesn't reduce her to her sexuality, but it's major selling point still. Yes, she's not Megan Fox in Transformers. There's some substance to her character. But Cameron was speaking from the point of broadening roles for women. Wonder Woman didn't break new ground, didn't do anything for allowing females lead big budget movies without looking drop dead gorgeous. And in this sense it's definitely misguided praise. I'd say that it did more for female directors of big budget movies, than portrayal of women in films like decade or more old films did.

Superman's pecs are front and center. Aquaman's chest is full frontal through most of the movie. Ben Affleck had an extended training scene that was focused on his muscles. I'd argue that your efforts to censor the artistic representation of women is more sexist than the representation of Wonder Women. Wonder Women was explicitly about rejecting those notions, and you're trying to put her back in the box where she has to dress according to the male notion of female sensibility.

Again. If it's a male director who decides to dress a female character in a skimpy outfit - it's a big no-no. Objectification, lack of progress and so on... If a female does the same with the same characters - it's great. Embracing female beauty, rejecting notions and so on... That's what I'm saying. Double standards. And I don't censor anything. I don't care what Wonder Woman wears. She can be fully nude or wear medieval full plate armor for all I care. I'm just discussing the argument.

No I don't. I doubt many people do. Seems like a very hyperbolic criticism in search of something to be angry about, IMO.

That's strange. Everyone seemed to say it was the best Wonder Woman moment in BvS. She's lying there with spread legs and grinning because fighting arouses her.

Doesn't matter. The fact that there aren't a lot of women coders or filmmakers still demonstrates the patriarchy. Women are not less suited for those professions than men. They are just as capable. So why aren't they entering those industries? The only reason why they wouldn't participate in those fields is because they've been instructed throughout life that such pursuits or interests are better suited for men. Men are nerdy. Men play video games. Men like comic book heroes. Men are historically the best directors, etc.

You're reducing females to passive organisms. Instructed and followed. Well, good thing there are females that resisted general perception through history and step by step earned space under sun. Well, basically what men did before them by killing each other en masse.

 

[jmc]

I love Sarah Connor and Ripley (in both the first two films) and...well, Beatrix exists. But one thing that always bugs me a bit as a pattern is that their conflict (with the exception of Ripley in the first Alien, my preferred of the bunch) comes down to being moms. And I can see how it gets there, and I think it works just fine in the films themselves. It's not a problem with them individually and doesn't stop me from loving Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens and...noticing that Kill Bill also exists. But when someone like James Cameron wants to posit himself as the arbiter of what women in film should look like, it seems to me his only two female characters that I would consider noteworthy are cut from the same mold. And that's fine, they're both well done characters, but I'd hate for every female lead to be like that. Variety is the spice of life and all that. One of the things I appreciated most about Wonder Woman is it gave it's lead a character arc that touched on some more women-centric ideas and broader themes, all wrapped up in a bit of the Superman mold. I look forward to more stories like that, and though I love most of the prior characters and respect their place in film history, a little less about children they have, had, or will have.

I would argue Wonder Woman is still very much in the realm of Sarah Connor in that it's still touches on the ideas of motherhood, albeit more the relationship between mothers and daughters. But yes, you are correct, Wonder Woman does branches out and shows the strength of femininity in a way that in all honest wasn't really depicted in the past, there's a compassion, a beauty and a love that really doesn't get seen in other superhero films. It's a film that isn't afraid to wear its heart on its sleeve and features a character unashamedly embraces the best of femininity.

 

[Snow Queen]

I would argue Wonder Woman is still very much in the realm of Sarah Connor in that it's still touches on the ideas of motherhood, albeit more the relationship between mothers and daughters. But yes, you are correct, Wonder Woman does branches out and shows the strength of femininity in a way that in all honest wasn't really depicted in the past, there's a compassion, a beauty and a love that really doesn't get seen in other superhero films. It's a film that isn't afraid to wear its heart on its sleeve and features a character unashamedly embraces the best of femininity.

It definitely does touch on motherhood as a concept, but it doesn't make it the center of the character and instead focuses on the relationship between her and her mother rather than the protagonist as a mother and making being a mother her motivation. The way it's handled feels a bit more emotionally honest to me as a viewer, and, in addition to simply good writing, I think a lot of that emotional honesty comes from the fact there's a woman in charge of the production who can bring a level of lived in experience to the project.

 

[jmc]

And 30 years of progress is enough to erase centuries upon centuries of disenfranchisement to you?

The point is that a lot of women choose out of particular careers for cultural and sociopolitical reasons.. not personal ones. It's not inherent to womanhood that they are less good at numbers or not suited for action sports... for instance... that's a social construction that women are taught, and which then becomes a reality.

It's not that black and white. For most of human history the vast majority of people had no option but to work in agriculture. Less than 10% of the global population was literate less than a thousand years ago. Women didn't have decent enough birth control until about 50 years ago and therefore couldn't control their careers as much. And here's the thing most seem to miss, there's a reason men and women served more specific roles and had limited options for most of human history - it's because that was the only way we could survive.

We're lucky, we've got opportunities now that people 500 years ago could only dream of. Most back then would have been lucky to be able to sign their name. And sure, many ridiculous ideas about women lasted far longer that they should have, like being able to run long distance races in the Olympics, but to suggest that hasn't changed enough in the last 30 years is absurd. This why I can't take anyones claims that women are being held back seriously, in Western cultures at least, not in the last 30 years. When you look at all the factors you see that the opportunities are there more than ever. The issue seems to be the results aren't what people want. And I honestly don't know what the 'right' result is that people are looking for.

 

[jmc]

It definitely does touch on motherhood as a concept, but it doesn't make it the center of the character and instead focuses on the relationship between her and her mother rather than the protagonist as a mother and making being a mother her motivation. The way it's handled feels a bit more emotionally honest to me as a viewer, and, in addition to simply good writing, I think a lot of that emotional honesty comes from the fact there's a woman in charge of the production who can bring a level of lived in experience to the project.

There is very much a feminine perspective in that movie. I've said in the past that WW is essentially a Disney princess movie disguised as a superhero film, because it has a lot of the traits that you find in those movies. It's kind of a fairytale.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There is very much a feminine perspective in that movie. I've said in the past that WW is essentially a Disney princess movie disguised as a superhero film, because it has a lot of the traits that you find in those movies. It's kind of a fairytale.

It's almost like having female voices for these films... matters.

 

[jmc]

It's almost like having female voices for these films... matter.

Sure, but let's not make out men can't create fairytale like stories that get at the heart of the feminine perspective and vice versa. Hell, Kathryn Bigalow create excellent films that lean heavily on masculinity, so it's not like the sexes can't creatively produce work that appeals to and shows the traits of the opposite sex. This is why I don't like the idea of having female directors only doing female superhero characters. Women shouldn't be pigeon holed into doing only female lead films, that's not fair at all. If a girl's got a great take on Superman or Batman or whoever she should be given the chance to pitch her ideas, not simply be lumped into using WW, or Harley Quinn or whoever.

 

[MaceB]

The movie doesn't reduce her to her sexuality, but it's major selling point still. Yes, she's not Megan Fox in Transformers. There's some substance to her character. But Cameron was speaking from the point of broadening roles for women. Wonder Woman didn't break new ground, didn't do anything for allowing females lead big budget movies without looking drop dead gorgeous. And in this sense it's definitely misguided praise. I'd say that it did more for female directors of big budget movies, than portrayal of women in films like decade or more old films did.

You know... I'll say this. I think the movie would have been much better served if they had cast an actress who was taller, more muscular, and maybe less traditionally beautiful. I think that would have been much more true to life, and it would have sold the message far better. Because yes, Wonder Woman's value partly still seems to come from her appearance. And although the film grapples with this reality, and pushes back against the reduction of Wonder Woman to her appearance, or gender... it's impossible to deny that Wonder Woman is presented... at least to some degree....as an object to be looked at for male pleasure. This basically comes from her uniform, which I consider to be a character problem.. not a movie problem.

I think Wonder Woman did break a certain degree of ground, because it really did grapple with these exact issues. This movie was very meta, frankly.. and the message was, 'don't underestimate me, or try to control me, or think you know me.. just because I'm a woman. I'm much more than what you think." I'm not going to throw out Wonder Woman as a movie or the good it did, because it's character still wears a ridiculous uniform, you know? Like, the sexism comes from the source material.

Again. If it's a male director who decides to dress a female character in a skimpy outfit - it's a big no-no. Objectification, lack of progress and so on... If a female does the same with the same characters - it's great. Embracing female beauty, rejecting notions and so on... That's what I'm saying. Double standards. And I don't censor anything. I don't care what Wonder Woman wears. She can be fully nude or wear medieval full plate armor for all I care. I'm just discussing the argument.

It wouldn't frame it in that way. It's not just about the character. Like you say, there's nothing about a tit that is inherently sexist to me. It's all about the context and how it's used. So like, in this case.. it's a question of how you present the skimpy outfit. You could choose to sexualize Wonder Woman... to make her the subject of the male gaze. Or, you could choose to present Wonder Woman as a superhero with a sexualized costume and not really deal with it. The film chose to go with the later. Could you say that decision in itself is justification or a minimization of a problem, and therefor sexist? You could. I just don't think that's particularly compelling when it comes to Wonder Woman, which specifically sought to tackle these issues directly, and it really it didn't sexualize her at all.

That's strange. Everyone seemed to say it was the best Wonder Woman moment in BvS. She's lying there with spread legs and grinning because fighting arouses her.
You're reducing females to passive organisms. Instructed and followed. Well, good thing there are females that resisted general perception through history and step by step earned space under sun. Well, basically what men did before them by killing each other en masse.

Here's where we start to get into familiar territory. This is a conversation I've had many times online. And look, I disagree. I'm not reducing women to passive organisms by acknowledging that they didn't have full agency by the law as late as the 1960s. This argument is well intentioned, but actually a little insulting. I think I know where it comes from. Self actualization and self agency are really hot philosophies right now... and it's true... we all have the power to overcome our own limitations, if we push and if we persist. I have no doubt that there were a few women in the 1500s that were actually surprisingly independent. However, that was not the norm. And it'd be wrong to say that women in 1500s had as much opportunity as men in the 1500s. I think we can all agree with that.

Buried in this argument is that supposition that all of those women could have achieved more, if only they wanted it enough or worked hard enough. Pardon me, but that's crap. There has been an unequal playing field between men and women throughout the entirety of our history... from the very moments that we began. I'm not reducing women by acknowledging that as a reason why women are less powerful than men now... I'm actually empowering women, by saying they are just as capable as men, and one of the primary reasons they weren't as successful is because they weren't treated equally. That's the truth. And it's also true that that the effects of that disparity have ripples than continue to be felt to this day. It's been centuries of treating women like furniture. For goodness sakes.. it's in our language... perSON, huMAN, woMAN. That's how ingrained it is. It's gonna take more than 60 years for them to have equal access to opportunity, not just in terms of the law, but also in terms of society and culture.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sure, but let's not make out men can't create fairytale like stories that get at the heart of the feminine perspective and vice versa. Hell, Kathryn Bigalow create excellent films that lean heavily on masculinity, so it's not like the sexes can't creatively produce work that appeals to and shows the traits of the opposite sex. This is why I don't like the idea of having female directors only doing female superhero characters. Women shouldn't be pigeon holed into doing only female lead films, that's not fair at all. If a girl's got a great take on Superman or Batman or whoever she should be given the chance to pitch her ideas, not simply be lumped into using WW, or Harley Quinn or whoever.

Where did I say women's voices need to be pigeonholed?

 

[jmc]

I never said you did.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Oh, you mean the non-slow mo shots where if stare right at the area, you can see the never ending darkness that makes up all women?

What about slowmo moments? Every second shot is like prime focus.

Also what is really funny about bringing up characters like Sarah Connor, Kiddo and Ripley, is they are all put in situations that are overtly sexual. Multiple times. Not that I am complaining. But yeah.

We have to remember that it was 40 years ago in case of Ripley. It was still a huge progress. Sarah Connor started as damsel, but she has an empowering moment in the finale. Not to mention the sequel completely transforms her. I struggle to remember any sexy time with Kiddo, tbh. Or some skimpy gear. Maybe tiny bit of feet fetish or some dirty jokes, but it's nothing in grand scheme of things. There are rare moments where she looks at least clean. She drowned in dirt, blood, sweat and whatever else is there she goes through.

You remove all nuance. You don't consider how something like Diane's relationship with her mother, or conversations with Steve play out. You want to just eliminate the themes and texture of the film because Gal Gadot is attractive.

Alright. Apparently we can have sexy innuedos, male gaze shots and costumes as long as there's substance to a character. After all, I'm a huge fan of Pfeiffer's Catwoman. I still somewhat think there's double standard regarding that. We create male gaze, yet find ways to justify it or, at least, don't pay attention by shifting focus to something else.

You show me a movie about a character like Wonder Woman, that is shot in a similar manner, which also goes over all the themes that Wonder Woman does. Show me a main character and film like Wonder Woman. Don't worry, I am watching a basketball game. I have plenty of time.

If you're trying to say that it's first successful female-sort-of-led superhero film, then no need to. It's a fact. Only this "achievement" is nominal. Many films deal with female empowerment, heroics, prejudice. Only this one is an average comic book superhero film.

So your entire argument is bunk, but we are just going to ignore that. Cool beans.

Since my argument was basically about your speculation why men in power choose men, it has nothing to do with statistic you brought. I just asked for more data just to see objective reality. And not just ratio of how many men and women are currently having top cheques. Also, some industries are dominated by men. It's impossible to deny. And in case of each one of them it's a separate and lengthy discussion.

 

[OutOfBoose]

It wouldn't frame it in that way. It's not just about the character. Like you say, there's nothing about a tit that is inherently sexist to me. It's all about the context and how it's used. So like, in this case.. it's a question of how you present the skimpy outfit. You could choose to sexualize Wonder Woman... to make her the subject of the male gaze. Or, you could choose to present Wonder Woman as a superhero with a sexualized costume and not really deal with it. The film chose to go with the later. Could you say that decision in itself is justification or a minimization of a problem, and therefor sexist? You could. I just don't think that's particularly compelling when it comes to Wonder Woman, which specifically sought to tackle these issues directly, and it really it didn't sexualize her at all.

I don't think it didn't deal with the sexualized suit. I think Patty, or whoever had input on that, followed the trend started in BvS and till JL. But perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder, seeing how you don't remember any sexualized moments from BvS. I frankly won't be surprised if WW2 won't have as many crotch shots or flying thigs in slowmotion as WW1, JL or BvS.

Buried in this argument is that supposition that all of those women could have achieved more, if only they wanted it enough or worked hard enough. Pardon me, but that's crap. There has been an unequal playing field between men and women throughout the entirety of our history... from the very moments that we began. I'm not reducing women by acknowledging that as a reason why women are less powerful than men now... I'm actually empowering women, by saying they are just as capable as men, and one of the primary reasons they weren't as successful is because they weren't treated equally. That's the truth. And it's also true that that the effects of that disparity have ripples than continue to be felt to this day. It's been centuries of treating women like furniture. For goodness sakes.. it's in our language... perSON, huMAN, woMAN. That's how ingrained it is. It's gonna take more than 60 years for them to have equal access to opportunity, not just in terms of the law, but also in terms of society and culture.

I doubt there will be an equal playing field in general. Especially where men and women aren't segregated, like in sports, for example. It will be a direct competition and survival of the fittest. Unless strictly enforced by gender quotas. Now, when artificial barriers are almost removed. As far as I can tell, in majority of fields they're gone. Not to mention, various social elements will always affect it - relationships, status, experience and other...

Also, I'm not a native English speaker, so these words mean nothing. In Russian it sounds: личность, человек, женщина, мужчина. They have nothing in common. So it's probably not as ingrained in our culture as in English-speaking ones.

 

[Donner]

Here's the problem: when there are an equal amount of women and men in positions of power (say a Canadian cabinet), people always assume the women got there because of quotas. But when a cabinet is made up of white men, everyone assumes they were all qualified.

So I'm asking, if in 10 years there are an equal amount of female directors as male directors, will people accept it as "survival of the fittest" or will there be those (mostly men) who say they're underqualified and are only in the business to satisfy quotas or feminists?

 

[jmc]

Given the percentage of male directors to female directors that currently exist it's hard to see how you could have a 50-50 split in 10 years without there being some type of quota system in place. And wasn't the Canadian thing specifically a quota system? There's few, if any political systems in the world that has 50% of all their politicians be women. Most tend to sit somewhere in the 25-33% range. One of our political parties has an aim to have 50% female members and just lost the unloseable election. Not that I'm putting the loss down to that, more that it doesn't seem to be a factor in people voting.

 

[Donner]

Given the percentage of male directors to female directors that currently exist it's hard to see how you could have a 50-50 split in 10 years without there being some type of quota system in place. And wasn't the Canadian thing specifically a quota system? There's few, if any political systems in the world that has 50% of all their politicians be women. Most tend to sit somewhere in the 25-33% range. One of our political parties has an aim to have 50% female members and just lost the unloseable election. Not that I'm putting the loss down to that, more that it doesn't seem to be a factor in people voting.

Darth posted a link that half of film school grads are women. So the percentage today is skewed heavily towards males.

What do you mean quota system? Trudeau made an election promise. Women are 50% of the population so they should make up half of the government. If other governments only have 25-30% women that's too low.

 

[jmc]

Darth posted a link that half of film school grads are women. So the percentage today is skewed heavily towards males.

What do you mean quota system? Trudeau chose his cabinet based on the population. Women are 50% of the population so they should make up half of the government. If other governments only have 25-30% women that's too low.

How many of his entire party members is female though?

 

[Donner]

How many of his entire party members is female though?

31% roughly I believe. But it's not the public voting for men over women, it's the internal nominations where men are favored over women. So before the public even votes, men are more likely to be on the ticket because of internal party voting.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Thing is though guys aren't simply going to step aside for the sake of fairness. It's always going to be a competition.

Don't agree with this I'm afraid, you make it sound like it's (life) a alpha male bear-pit where all males are concerned and their outlook and capacity (or lack of to look at something other than 'must have it'), it's not.

 

[jolldan]

Darth posted a link that half of film school grads are women. So the percentage today is skewed heavily towards males.

What do you mean quota system? Trudeau made an election promise. Women are 50% of the population so they should make up half of the government. If other governments only have 25-30% women that's too low.

I don't really agree with this.

Don't get me wrong if its a case of women started getting voted in and are more popular than the blokes then yeah im all for it they can be 50%, 60%, 70% as much as they want.

But just simply because you make up half the population shouldn't mean you are automatically half of the government. There are different levels of representation all across the board in different fields its not always a case that one gender is being supressed. And I would bet a lot of money that when you do this some of the better people for the job get left out men and women.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Thousands of years of presenting the concept of "electable" as peak male has nothing to do with anything. Same with men being literally the only option for the vast majority of that time. Not a thing.