The book list eminds me of ho I, too, read The Second Sex at 14 and then things were never the same. Of course my mother was a very strong feminist and it just seemed natural that I do whatever she could... not equal to men, I still do not understand that stand....

Apparently she murdered her boyfriend not husband:

Jeanette Strowder, 58, is facing a first-degree murder charge after shooting her boyfriend, Jesse Martin, 54, to death. Strowder and Martin had lived together for two years, and dating for almost 15. All of this came to an end on Tuesday when Jeanette found Jesse's stash of porn. She states that she lost control, got a gun and shot him multiple times, including twice in the head. Jeanette then allegedly smashed the windshields of both Martin's motorcycle and car, and scratched the name of one of the women in the porn onto one of his vehicles. Her bond has been set at $600,000, and her preliminary hearing was set for Oct.22.

The book that first introduced me to feminism was "Reviving Ophelia" by Mary Pipher. I'm so glad I found that one in high school, before I went off to college/Female-Objectification-Land.

Do you have the stupid new Dove adverts in the US? Women in the UK have never been so patronised!

Re: Warner Bros stance on actresses, why not go back to Shakespearean days when women weren't allowed on stage, not even to play female roles? Why not have boys and men dress up like girls and women? That's what I want to see WB do.

The NYT review of "Lake of Fire" makes a point of stating that there are very few women in it, mostly men. On the other hand, there's a Romanian movie called "4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days," that deals with illegal abortion and female friendship. Slate reviews it here: http://www.slate.com/id/2175307/nav/tap3/
I hope it actually ends up in a theater somewhere near me.

Then again, Robinov's poorly performing Superman Returns was criticized for its girlie-man portrayal of the superhero.

And he can blame that on the female director and writers of Superman Returns, oh wait, no, they were all MALE. Gollygee, I wonder if he's going to blame Bryan Singer's homosexuality on that and then ban all gay directors at WB. I don't think so, seeing as they're trying to negotiate a sequel with him.

I'm happy that Allred pointed out that when white male films fail, no one talks of banning white male films. However, if it's anyone else then that only goes to "prove" that there are "no" audiences for non-white male films. Makes me wanna bang my head against the wall because at some point in my career I'm going to have to deal with WB, whether for film or television. Arrrrgh. Hopefully his ass will have been bounced by then.

Where's the "what can be blamed on women/feminism thread" when you need it?

If we're reminiscing about our favorite feminist consciousness-raising books, I'd have to go with my mom's copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves which I read cover-to-cover in my early teens. I devoured it all: from natural childbirth to lesbian sex to masturbation. I particularly remember loving the personal voices that are woven into every chapter. And you better believe I now have my own copy on the reference shelf!

horrifying story in nyt:

BUKAVU, Congo — Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist, cannot bear to listen to the stories his patients tell him anymore.

Every day, 10 new women and girls who have been raped show up at his hospital. Many have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair.

“We don’t know why these rapes are happening, but one thing is clear,� said Dr. Mukwege, who works in South Kivu Province, the epicenter of Congo’s rape epidemic. “They are done to destroy women.�

I've been meaning to ask someone this - but have any of you in California seen a hideous abstinence-only ad? I remember it featured children asking their parents to "talk to them about sex" and then went off on some bullshit about how abstinence will make them better people. I really wish I could remember more details.

I'll admit that Warner Brothers' no-female-lead proposal is a bit of an overreaction to the possibility that Julia Roberts rekindles her movie career, but it's a risk worth taking.

Re: Superman Returns and the "girliness" of Supes

Why is he girly? Because he wears tights? That's goddamn manliness and security, that is. Why is he girly? Because he lets "his" woman shack up with another man, all the while raising his kid? That's consideration for the situation.

Is it because he doesn't use the full extent of his power? That's what Superman is. All the time, every day. He exists in a world of cracked glass, and if he wasn't careful when he was younger he'd kill his mom when he hugged her. Is tiptoeing through the tulips, metaphorically speaking, somehow girly?

Why is being "girly" a bad thing, anyway? Have you seen Mr. Universe contestants? Primped and buffed and oiled and shaved. So very girly. And yet...hailed as manly men.

Oh, and Robinoff hates people without penises.

The books that really kick-started my feminism: Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, which gave me a lot of insight into why my affluent housewife mother had been so abusive and depressed while I was growing up; and Can't Buy My Love, by Jean Kilbourne, which completely changed the way I looked at advertising and the media in general, but especially in how they approach women. I reread it every year, and I can't recommend it enough.

Since then, I've fallen in love with bell hooks, Susan Faludi, Katha Pollitt, and Susie Bright.

Oh, forgot to mention Sandra Bem's The Lenses of Gender. And all of the above were read when I was roughly 20 or 21. I wish that I had read more on the experiences of people of color while I was that age; wasted a lot of my early 20s saying well-intentioned but ill-informed and really embarrassing things about race relations. It wasn't until grad school that I finally started to draw the parallels between women-as-deviation-from-the-male-standard and minorities-as-deviations-from -the-white-standard.

My first was Manifesta, unless you count something I read at around 10 called Girls Are People, Too that annoyed all my teachers because I would insist that there was no reason in science class to refer to "men" since it didn't include women.

Does anyone have anything collaborating the no-female-leads article? Cuz I've got people getting all shirty with me because they don't believe anything that's "just" three producers.

I really disliked the movie TRADE. I work for an organization that fights human trafficking, and while I appreciate this filmmaker's desire to "expose" human trafficking, I found this film to be highly problematic. For one thing, the two trafficking victims are a white woman and a young Mexican child. For another, both are kidnapped. I'm not saying the characters or scenario are unrealistic, but I'm very tired of trafficking activism being limited to "acceptable victims," ie innocent white tourists and little children. In addition, the racial implications of "who rescues who" in the movie are very troublesome. Overall, I don't think the film is very eye-opening at all --- it relies on stereotypes that are already very much a part of our knowledge of trafficking as Americans.

RE: "Does anyone have anything collaborating the no-female-leads article?"

I have been searching and am unable to find any corroboration to the allegation. All the articles refer back to Nikki Finke's assertion that three different [unnamed] producers passed on this information to her. Maybe she just made it up because she hates Jeff Robinov or something.

I am interested to know if there are any online sources that keep track of women's roles in movies vs men's. I've been noticing (and being annoyed) more and more when I watch movies just how few substantial women parts there are. It's nothing new, but it's been bothering me a lot lately. I was at least happy that the lone female in The Departed had an actual purpose beyond just being a good-looking fucktoy, but even then I look her up on IMDB and the first comment I see says, "Does anyone else think she's not that good looking?" because of course that's the only thing that matters.

I don't need a "chick flick". Why can't women be in powerful roles in movies?

Why can't women be in powerful roles in movies?

Seriously? What about Resident Evil, BloodRayne, Underworld, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Æon Flux, Flightplan, Blade: Trinity, Catwoman, Kill Bill, Million Dollar Baby, Enough, Charlie's Angels, Ecks vs. Sever, The River Wild, X-Men, Matrix, Terminator 2 & 3, the later Alien movies, The Brave One, Silence of the Lambs (debately), Tomb Raider, Fantastic Four...

I did some more online digging and it appears Nikki Finke isn't particularly fond of Jeff Robinov. She has previously claimed that Warner Bros staff are "suffering at the hands of ugly megalomaniacs" because they have to deal Jeff Robinov and makes reference to "Robinov's evil-doing" and has previously stated that "movie moguls are complete morons." Seems reasonable to take this allegation with a grain of salt.

I too read Manohla Dargis' review of "Lake of Fire" in the NYT a couple of days ago, and had a similar feeling of skepticism about it. In that review, and in most others I've read about the film, its seems that the greatest point of fascination is how Tony Kaye made it - framing it as this great obsessive sacrifice on his part, but with little to no mention of women experts or participants (In one interview I read, he even said that he originally hadn't planned to include the perspective of women patients at all - he ended up doing so in order to better structure the film).

This really irks me. It angers me that a guy can make a film that is being called the "definitive film about abortion," without including the opinions and experiences of women. How is it that men's voices and perspectives so often frame the debate about this issue and decide it's policy?

Since I don't live in New York, I probably won't get to see this film for a while. I'll be eager to hear what people think of it.

"Why can't women be in powerful roles in movies?"

/Elizabeth/!

I really enjoyed the first one, and the second one "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" comes out this Friday!

alaric,

I have to complain about some of the movies you mentioned, like for example: Charlie's Angels, Tomb Raider, and Kill Bill.

In all of those (maybe some of the others, b/c I haven't seen them all) it's hard to tell whether it is the women or their breasts that get the leading roles...

Nina, in Kill Bill, as a lover of breasts, including my own, I have to tell you... I honestly don't think Uma Thurman's breasts had anything to do with that role. Honestly. The others, though, yeah, probably.

Hard as it will be to avoid WB movies as a film nut, I have to say, I know no other way to send the message to WB execs that their sexist attitudes are not at all okay.

As per the boyfriend thing... wow. I also can't imagine it was just over porn. Not that I speak for all women, or anything, but I have no problem at all with porn (or the idea of it, the content is another story) and even the women I know who find it utterly offensive in every form aren't moved to so much as disapprove of anyone who possesses or partakes of it. Their probably taking the usual and easy "let's sensationalise the hell out of this" route.

The Beauty Myth was the book that got me into feminism. I grew up in a single parent headed household with a mother who was in a lot of ways a very strong role model for us. She encouraged us to pursue our passioons, and to explore less traditional 'female' areas, like history, math and science. For all her strengths, though, my mother had a lot of insecurities relating to her body and food. Dieting was commonplace in my house, and there were more Jane Fonda Total Workout tapes than kids videos.

As I hit puberty, it became apparent that I had inherited my mother's body image issues. When I got my first period, I felt so ashamed and didn't tell a sole. I dieted and starved myself in the belief that I would be more lovable if I was thinner. Around this time, I found the Beauty Myth in my school library and it revolutionised the way I felt about my self, my body and the culture of beauty in general.

Although when I read it these days I am a little more critical, it really was an eye opener to my self loathing teenage self, and I think has really contributed to the positive self image I (usually) inhabit in my adulthood.

Here you go Alaric:

A Walk To Remember, Angel Eyes, Bridget Jones's Diary, Crossroads, Dirty Dancing, Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, Down To You, Enough, First Wives Club, Forces Of Nature, Heartbreakers, John Tucker Must Die, Legally Blonde 1 & 2, Maid In Manhattan, Miss Congeniality, Muriel's Wedding, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, Never Been Kissed, Picture Perfect, Practical Magic, Pretty Woman, Romy And Michele's High School Reunion, Sweet Home Alabama, Sweetest Thing, Ten Things I Hate About You, Two Weeks Notice, Wedding Planner

"Not that I speak for all women, or anything, but I have no problem at all with porn (or the idea of it, the content is another story) and even the women I know who find it utterly offensive in every form aren't moved to so much as disapprove of anyone who possesses or partakes of it. "

Well I also can't speak for this particular case, but I can say I know women (generally older women, including my mom) who not only disapprove of porn, but strongly disapprove of other people watching it as well.

Sgt. York and Cola,
I guess I should clarify, I realize there are certain redeeming qualities to all those movies (or at least I realize all those female leads are powerful in a way). I personally am just also rubbed wrong when a female character who might be strong in certain ways is also portrayed as very girly-girly or very sexualized. If you looked for movies where there were very strong female characters who were not highly-girly or wearing super sexualized outfits most of the time, your movie list would be a lot shorter. And I'm not saying movie actors and actresses should have no sexual appeal -obviously most successful male actors are very good looking -but the male actors generally aren't expected to fight the bad guys wearing high-heels and miniskirts, which I think is significant...

"Erin Brokovich" and "Dangerous Beauty" are some of my other fave adult movies with female leads...

Imagine if Norbit or Big Momma's House had done poorly and a studio had said "we are no longer doing movies with Black leads." The shit storm that would have thundered upon them would have been apocalyptic.

Thanks but I'll take "Kill Bill" over just about any other action movie any day. So suck it, Warner Brothers. I'll be boycotting.

OK, so my boycott may weaken whenever a Harry Potter film is released, but I'll do my best.

David Batstone, a leader in the fight against human trafficking, spoke at my college a few weeks ago. His stories about women sold for sex and the situations they are forced to live in are disturbing. I'm glad TRADE will be able to open a few more eyes to what's going on.

For more information on human trafficking check out http://www.notforsalecampaign.org

Again, we don't know that Jeff Robinov actually said that and it appears the person making the allegation doesn't particularly like him.

About Superman Returns and the dormat portrayal of the superhero one has to acknowledge the fact that the movie targeted women as the primary audience. The director Bryan Singer stated, "This is my first chick flick. There's plenty of stuff for the boys, but in the past I've made movies that boys have to drag their girlfriends to. This one shows my friends that I have a romantic side."

Getting back on the subject of books, my mom bought me "Reviving Ophelia" when I was 13, and all of a sudden my hellish adolescence made sense to me.

But the book that really started my feminist streak was "Girls Gone Mild."

OK, so it wasn't so much the book itself as that I found it so overgeneralized and patronizing (not to mention sketchily sourced) that I promply read "Sisterhood Interrupted" to clear my mind. That was my first real awakening to the history of feminism beyond the fact that there were waves and that there was a myth about burning bras.

I read "The Handmaid's Tale" at age 13.

Cola, yeah, I definitely don't think it was just the porn that set her off, but there are plenty of women who find porn so offensive, that it's beyond not okay if their significant others are watching it. My brother and plenty of my guy friends watch porn, but my boyfriend does not. I got lucky that it never interested him in the first place, but since discovering a frighteningly large collection possessed by an ex-boyfriend, and the very visceral reaction I didn't realize it would provoke in me (b/c I knew he watched some porn, and always thought I was okay with that), it's been a rule for me. It's porn or me. And no hard feelings if you want to keep your porn, it just means we'd be better off friends, and not dating. Of course, I wouldn't ever get violent over it. That woman had to be seriously unstable to begin with.

"We've got lots of hearsay and conjecture... those are kinds of evidence."

As much as I can appreciate lists of movies with women in them as main characters, if I asked for a list of movies with men as main characters who did something that drove the plot, the lists would be massive.

These lists are exceptions, not rules.

Plus, the only one listed (other than the not-yet-released Elizabeth II: More Historical Inaccuracy)that's come out in the last year is "The Brave One", I think. (I don't go to a lot of movies anymore, and I'm in Australia, so my timing may be a bit off.)

Having a woman in the lead doesn't make a good movie anymore than having a male in the lead makes a bad movie, but it would be really nice if I could go to the theatre and see a few more movies that have women doing something.

I don't care if Elizabeth has historical inaccuracies, I don't know English history well enough to recognize them, and I thought the character in the first one was awesome. So there... (or something, silly I'm defending a movie I haven't seen yet, huh?)

(Btw, what historical inaccuracies are you referring to? There are always multiple versions of a history, but I'd be genuinly curious to know about major inaccuracies...)

Liz,

YES. I saw that commercial two days ago while eating breakfast and about spit out my cereal. What a load of shit.

History Sporks takes on Elizabeth.

If the movie hadn't been pretending to be based on historic stuff, I'd be fine with it. As a movie, it's interesting, and the costuming is outstanding. Liking the movie isn't a problem! It's people who say, without irony, that they "understand" British history because they've seen Elizabeth and Braveheart that bother me.

Sgt. York, I was only trying to list movies where there was a powerful female lead or major supporting role. Like as in action movies or thrillers. So Bridge Jones, not so much.

Here are some more, though:

Bad Girls (1994 cowgirl movie), Point of No Return/La Femme Nakita, The Quick & The Dead, Blue Steel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, V.I. Warshowsky, Serial Mom, G.I. Jane, Tank Girl, Bounty Hunters, Domino, the Long Kiss Goodnight....

I personally am just also rubbed wrong when a female character who might be strong in certain ways is also portrayed as very girly-girly or very sexualized. If you looked for movies where there were very strong female characters who were not highly-girly or wearing super sexualized outfits most of the time, your movie list would be a lot shorter.

Really? I don't really think it would be that much shorter. Maybe remove Tomb Raider, although it's been awhile since I saw that movie. And actually, what is wrong with being a powerful girly-girl? Like the Charley's Angels? It is a sharp contrast from the tough, ripped, and arguably unfeminine Linda Hamilton-style powerful women.

I don't remember seeing much in the way of breasts in Kill Bill. Definitely in Tomb Raider, sure ... if that bothers you, I recommend a double-dose of Casino Royale and the shot of a ripped Daniel Craig emerging from the water.

Also: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, DOA, Elektra, Barb Wire, Grindhouse, Mulan...

Funny, because I actually remember remarking that there didn't seem to be a lot of movies with strong female protagonists lately.

I read my first feminist book at age 17 - "The Female Eunuch" - by Germaine Greer. Reading it was like seeing in colour for the first time.

Funny thing, too, because a female classmate of mine saw it and was like, "Eew, is that like, a feminist book? I don't read those kind of books."

>

Thanks, Ann for adding the piece I did on my Lycos blog.

As for movies that I like that doesn't show women's bosoms there is one that you all forgot: the Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love.

BTW, I have moved most of my present-day content to my google blog:

http://aikenareaprogressive.blogspot.com

RE: "Does anyone have anything collaborating the no-female-leads article?"

As I said elsewhere, does it really effing matter?

The reason why people are so quick to believe it is because this has practically been the de facto position of every major studio (and "head of film production") out there for, you know, ever.

(Or, at least since the Hayes Code was put into affect.)

It's not like this is a revelation or anything. It's more like everyone's initial reaction is "oooh! We got a confession. Now we can pin them on it!"

Then everyone calms down and is all "Oh. Not really. They're just going to deny it from now 'til doomsday, no matter whether it's true or not."

Which is mostly true, but not completely. Because now (er, well, by this time tomorrow) we've gotten them on record as denying that this is their policy. So now it's just a tiny bit easier to slam them with the fact that it might as well be.

"The director Bryan Singer stated, "This is my first chick flick"

Thus demonstrating that he doesn't know the first thing about women, imo.

"Funny, because I actually remember remarking that there didn't seem to be a lot of movies with strong female protagonists lately."

Compared to men, not really.

What I find really fascinating is that the 1:3 ratio that Davis talks about keeps popping up elsewhere. If you look at the number appearances of male vs. female heroes on Heroes, the ratio is about the same. Even though the number of male to female main characters is closer to 1:6 (last season).

Gee, it's almost as if male is the default in their minds, but they don't mean to be sexist, so they feel the need to fill the obvious gap, but end up doing so with temporary female characters that have no depth, because they don't really care enough to get to the root of the problem.

(That, and I'm getting the distinct impression that the writers no longer know what to do with Ali's character now that everyone knows she can act and they can no longer get away with her just being all whiny all the time.)

And of course, this 1:3 ratio is really worse than it sounds, because it means that the conversations are rarely between women, they are usually between men or between men and women. Which gives the impression that women don't exist without men.

(ps, I know the numbers that Davis gives are for kids movies. See Jane has numbers for adult movies - from leads all the way down to the gender ratio of crowds - and it's even worse. More like 1:4 and higher. But their website is screwy and I can't find the numbers anymore.)

Out of the movies you listed Alaric, these are the ones I think are marketed largely on "hotness":

Resident Evil, BloodRayne, Underworld, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Æon Flux, Catwoman, Charlie's Angels, X-Men, Tomb Raider, Fantastic Four, Bad Girls (1994 cowgirl movie), The Quick & The Dead, Blade: Trinity (I put this in here because she's a pretty half-arsed character)

The ones I thought gave more emphasis to the character then the outfits:

Flightplan, Kill Bill, Million Dollar Baby, Matrix, Terminator 2 & 3, the later Alien movies, Silence of the Lambs (debately), G.I. Jane, Tank Girl, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Long Kiss Goodnight....

I was pleasantly surprised by Million Dollar Baby, for while there was some unrealistic parts by and large she was a convincing fighter. The Alien movies were fucking fantastic - wasn't Ripley originally written for a man but the director really liked Sigorney (sp?) Weaver?

Tank Girl and GI Jane are hardly all that mainstream! Tank Girl is awesome, though the comics are better...

Oh, and ones I wouldn't have a clue about:
The Brave One, Enough, Ecks vs. Sever, The River Wild, Point of No Return/La Femme Nakita, Blue Steel, V.I. Warshowsky, Serial Mom, Bounty Hunters, Domino

So basically over the last twenty years you've got about 30 movies (generously) that actually feature women as major characters, and a good half of them have to be sold on their sex appeal (I don't even always object: half-dressed ladies + guns are pretty hot. But hardly deserving of a feminist stamp)

Not. Impressed.

Fenriswolf - I don't have a problem with movies being marketed on hotness. I mean, I like watching beautiful women. And it's not like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Will Smith, Vin Diesel and all the other male movie stars are tough on the eyes...

GI Jane wasn't a mainstream movie? What are you talking about? It was in all the theaters, had a $50 million budget and an a-list star. Tank Girl was a flop, earning $4 million on a $25 million budget, according to Wikipedia. But it was still in theaters. A lot of these movies have been flops.

The ones you don't know:

The Brave One - this is in theaters now, or just was, so I'm surprised you don't know it. It was No. 1 at the box office for a week last month. Jodie Foster as vigilante who tracks down thugs who killed her fiance and assaulted her.

Enough - Jennifer Lopez as abused women who learns martial arts and kicks the shit out of her abusive husband.

Ecks vs. Sever - I guess the title was actually Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. I didn't see it, but spy vs. spy with Lucy Liu as one of the spys.

The River Wild - very recommended, starring Meryl Streep as mom whose rafting trip is taken hostage by thugs. She kills them.

Point of No Return/La Femme Nakita - La Femme Nakita was the (superior) French version. The American starred Bridget Fonda as a government assassin.

Blue Steel - 1990. Jamie Lee Curtis as a rookie cop engaged in cat and mouse games with psychopath.

V.I. Warshowsky - Kathleen Turner as private eye.

Serial Mom - another flop. Maybe not a good example. Black comedy with Kathleen Turner as mom turned serial killer.

Bounty Hunters - 1997. male vs. female bounty hunters compete.

Domino - seriously, you haven't heard of this movie? 2005... It's inspired by the real story of Domino Harvey, an actor's daughter who became an L.A. bounty hunter. Another flop, though.

One I forgot - Courage Under Fire, with Denzel Washington trying to find out if Meg Ryan should be the first woman to receive (posthumously) the Medal of Honor for bravery in combat in the first Gulf War.

Keep in mind that I'm only trying to list movies that feature _powerful_ women - even if they're hot. And by powerful I mean powerful in an ass-kicking way, not like a Devil Wears Prada or female executive type way. Dramas, romantic comedies, even legal thrillers like the Pelican Brief don't make the cut. There are obv. many more movies with female leads. (Another I'd recommend to everyone here but doesn't fit on the list is Norma Rae, a 1979 movie starring Sally Field as a woman who gets involved in the union movement in a southern textile mill... marketed under the tagline, "The story of a woman with the courage to risk everything for what she believes is right.").

I looked at Wikipedia, and you are right about Alien! The movie script did call for a male Ripley, though "Cast of Characters" section stated that "The crew is unisex and all parts are interchangeable for men or women." Wikipedia sez, Ripley was to be played by Tom SKerritt, but the producers changed to a female because they'd "heard rumors of Fox working on other titles with strong female leads."

Obv., there's been tons more action movies with male leads... but we'd be seeing Catwoman Returns, Elektra 2, etc., if those movies had done better at the box office. Women tend to see chick flicks, tho, so that's what gets made...

Alaric, for the love of God. One, I haven't seen a single movie on the list you just made, and I've only even heard of one of them ("The Brave One"- ooh, look, she stands up for herself, so she must be a feminist!). Do you seriously have nothing better to do than belittle the point being made? Are you denying that the ratio of male leads to female leads is grossly disproportionate? Or are you going to Google movies with women in them all day?

"Women tend to see chick flicks, so that's what gets made..." OH SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.

I suspect the success or failure of movies with female leads has less to do with "women seeing chick flicks" and more to do with quality of scripts, direction, how the movies are marketed, assumptions about what women will see, and other such factors.

And regardless - what's wrong with men going to see action flicks with women? They are capable of enjoying women kicking ass and taking names, aren't they? Women alone don't make up the entirety of the audience for things like the proposed Wonder Woman, for example.

DrkEyedCajn - That's hysterical. You haven't seen a single movie on this list, and then you complain that there are too few movies with female leads? Geez, I wonder why? Go out and support them, rather than sitting around whining!

(But for the record: this wasn't a list of "feminist" movies, just ones that starred or co-starred powerful women. And learn to read: I stated explicitly that there's been "tons more action movies with male leads.")

No, Alaric. You know what's hysterical? Making comments like "Fenriswolf - I don't have a problem with movies being marketed on hotness. I mean, I like watching beautiful women" on a FEMINIST BLOG. You're proving that maybe the studios are right, which is that studios shouldn't make MAINSTREAM movies with women in the lead roles, unless they'll be wearing tiny skirts for your viewing pleasure.

Seriously, can you go be a sexist pig somewhere else? There's plenty of places that would love to listen to your drivel, but this isn't one of them.

I said POWERFUL not SUPER-ACTION-HERO! But anyway, thanks for the lists.

By powerful I'm thinking Julianne Moore in The Hours or Far From Heaven.

I was really just asking if there's a site devoted to women's roles in movies.

Hey now DrkEyedCajn:

I've seen about half those and have of heard of all but but one. They're not really obscure. If you want to get obscure I'm fairly sure I can pull another 20 out of my DVD collection.

I believe alaric was responding to the commenter that stated that there have been 30 female lead movies in the past 20 years.

Yes, we need more women in leads roles in film. That's not in doubt. However overstating a problem, and then ripping on anyone that disagrees with that overstatement as denying there is a problem is a load of crap. I'd much rather people argue the point from a position of informed accuracy.

(Incidentally how has no one mentioned Deathproof or The Decent? Sure, neither are great cinema, but as action/horror movies with at least half a dozen distinctly different female characters, lead by competent and powerful women, they deserve some recognition.)

Particularly when this all relates to a highly dubious bit of film gossip.

Ehh, Fenriswolf, I don't see anything incompatible with modern feminism and appreciating beautiful, competent women. I thought all that real-feminists-don't-wear-makeup-or-shave-their-legs stuff was passe. It's okay to be a feminist and HOT now... didn't you get the memo?

Besides, like I mentioned, most male movie stars are also, well, really gorgeous. I remember being in a theater and hearing all the women cheering for some Will Smith shower scene. Even the double-standard where older women can't be seen as sex symbols is changing. (N.B.: I'm not saying things are equal)

Halfmad - oh...ooops. This maybe a men-are-from-venus etc. moment... of course by powerful I assumed ass-kicking. I have not seen either of those movies and judging from their plot summary I might have to say I'd prefer to do my laundry than watch them... though that's not meant as a dis - different strokes 'n all.

Sorry, that comment was meant for DrkEyedCajn.

*Taking a deep breath to calm down*

All right, Roni & Alaric- here's the thing. I'm not a movie buff. I'm an extremely busy person, and I don't have time to scour Blockbuster to find the 1 movie in 10 that doesn't portray women negatively in some way. The movies that I hear of and go to are the mainstream blockbuster types, because those are the movies that my friends & acquaintances talk about and recommend. Look, I'm really glad there are some movies out there that portray women as complete human beings. I really am. But here are the problems I'm having:

Movies made in the 1990's? I was in the SECOND GRADE in 1990. Let's talk about what's happening now, which is a dearth of woman-lead movies that aren't "chick flicks" or video game spinoffs.

And Alaric, I was deeply, deeply offended by "I don't have a problem with movies being marketed on hotness" and "Women tend to see chick flicks, tho, so that's what gets made." I'm still offended. The lesson of every Chick Flick I've seen is that the woman character is incomplete until she finds Twoo Wuv. I find the vast majority of them nauseating- so THIS woman does not "tend to see chick flicks." And I DO have a problem with "movies being marketed on hotness." It's the sale of women's bodies as a consumable commodity. For the myriad ways this is harmful, please see the other threads about Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty," and "Mom Jobs," the sale of plastic surgery for new mothers, etc., etc. Hollywood is one of the prime movers of our culture's obsession with female physical perfection. I don't think it's wrong to call them out on it, as well as the consumers (apparently Alaric) that drive this kind of marketing.

I've been meaning to ask someone this - but have any of you in California seen a hideous abstinence-only ad? I remember it featured children asking their parents to "talk to them about sex" and then went off on some bullshit about how abstinence will make them better people. I really wish I could remember more details.

"It's okay to be a feminist and HOT now... didn't you get the memo?"

You know what? I'm going back to my original statement of SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.

NON-FICTION FEMINIST BOOKS

My introduction to feminism was probably a little different than most people's, since I am coming from a biology/animal behavior background.

The first books that got me interested in feminism were by feminist primate researchers and sociobiologists. Here are some good examples:

The woman who never evolved BY Sarah Hrdy

Primate Paradigms BY Linda Fedigan

FICTION BOOKS

I'll second or third anyone who already said "The Handmaid's Tale".

MOVIES: Roni, I totally agree - the Descent was freakin' intense.

Indeed, it is okay to be a feminist and "hot" (by which I assume we mean "conventionally attractive by mainstream standards"). BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY MORE OKAY TO OBJECTIFY "HOT" WOMEN OR ANY OTHER WOMAN.

That concludes your Daily Feminist Public Service Announcement. For fuck's sake.

DrkEyedCajn – So you spend money on the types of movies you don’t like, and make no effort to spend money on movies with themes and character treatments you might appreciate? Liberal pretentions aside, Hollywood is driven by profit. The movie industry is a democracy. Vote with your dollars if you want change. That might work better than suggesting anal play to blog commenters.

I was deeply, deeply offended by ... "Women tend to see chick flicks, tho, so that's what gets made." I'm still offended.

Apparently you are just offended by reality DrkEyedCajn. It is not men who go to see movies like Sweet Home Alabama, Bridget Jones's Diary, Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, Maid In Manhattan, Wedding Planner and who will see the new "Sex In the City" movie in droves. Guys, in general, detest these movies. We might go with a girlfriend so that we can get to choose what to see the next time.

I mean, seriously, like, duh. They are called chick flicks for a reason: women tend to see them! Do you really doubt this? Do I really have to find you audience numbers? Do you really not understand that I was not saying that _every_ women likes chick flicks?

And actresses bodies _are_ a consumable commodity. Men's, too. I'm not going to apologize for finding women attractive, or that I sometimes to see movies 'cause they star a hot actress.

Did anyone else read "Ophelia Speaks"? I loved that book and used it for many a college entrance essay.
I don't remember being introduced to Feminism, but I remember being 5 watching a girl on television being terrified a frog. I thought "I'll never let that be me" and went outside to dig up worms.

And Goddman the WB! They make Harry Potter!

Alaric, you seem to have a lot of difficulty in telling the difference between the statement "chick flicks tend to be seen by women" and "women tend to see chick flicks." The first is (sadly) factual. The second is an assumption on women's movie viewing habits that is both stereotypical and unproven. If you meant to say the former, well you're just going to have to work on saying what you mean. If you meant to say the latter, which you did actually say, then yes, you are being offensive.

And you don't have to apologize for anything. But don't be surprised when, yet again, you end up looking like an ass.

Alaric: Listen to Cara. You might also want to look up why using the term "chick flick" is sexist. Yuck.

Indeed, Xana. I could have gotten into that too, but baby steps.

alaric: i would not be surprised if someone has already shared this link with you, but you may want to spend some time on this site: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/purpose/

also, did you know you can find someone attractive without viewing their body as "consumable"?

i mean. duh.

A bit late on the 'women in films' subject, but just one point to make there... has anyone noticed how most of the films in Alaric's list above are sci-fi/fantasy films? Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a SF fan myself - but it's hard to avoid the implication that women are only acceptable as lead roles in films set in fantasy universes, rather than in the real world. And that's pretty disturbing when you think about it.

"Apparently you are just offended by reality DrkEyedCajn. It is not men who go to see movies like Sweet Home Alabama, Bridget Jones's Diary..."

Those first two are absolute BS. I know plenty of men who like the first two. As for the rest, aside from Sex in the City most women I know didn't think that they were all that great. Quite often their limited appeal had more to do with A woman actually having a significant role and the guy being the co-object of lust. Speaking of which, I'm laughing my ass off at the implication that women didn't go see 300.

"They are called chick flicks for a reason"

Yes, and strangely enough, it's not because of who goes to see them, it's more because of who stars in them. If we labeled things "chick flix" or "chick lit" because of who liked them, Firefly would have been labeled a "chick show" instead of getting cancelled.

And Alaric, you can't just list a handful a movies and say, "see, movies of have women in them!"

Wikipedia (whose list is hardly exhaustive) shows over 1,400 films released in 2006 alone. Your list includes movies over a decade and a half old, right? So that means you are hand picking, what? 20? 50?, movies out of at minimum of 21,000 and acting as if that actually says something concrete about the movie industry.

alaric,
I hope Cara and others made the language distinction clear. I can't even explain to you how much I hate films like Head Over Heels, etc. I only watch them when a male (!) friend drags me to see them. Dido with chick lit. Ugh. Talk about pigeon-holing all of us. And for your information, the whole "men are dragged so they can choose the next time..." isn't as cut and dry as you may think. I highly, highly suspect that the whining men do about these films is because they are made to feel that is how they are to react. I will never forget all of those men who were 'dragged' to the theater for Titanic and ended up coughing (ahem, crying) along with their partners. Come to think of it, the very few times I have seen chick flicks my mind wonders and I notice how much into them the guys get (as in, screaming "OMG!" in a quiet theater over a plot twist). I have to conclude by saying that you have really bought into these stereotypes with a double-wham since according to you not only women supposedly rarely go for action flicks, but "real" men supposedly don't enjoy sentimental films.

OK, so the thing with Warner Brothers strikes me as a damn lie. OK, WB pretty much sucks as much as the next big studio right now, but not because it makes all-chick movies that bomb. It's because it, like all other major studios, force screenwriters to rewrite their scripts to the formula. The formula happens to include women whining about everything, even if they're supposed to be the heroes. What's that one study that shows in most books with a female protagonist, the problem is either created by said female, and/or she needs a male to help her get out of said problem?

Studios make movies suck, not scripts/concepts. Studios are the ones that decide movies HAVE to include the latest reality TV star, regardless of whether they can carry a film or are appropriate for the role at ALL. And then, the director gets all the shit for the movie, even though he has to work within the confines of the producers and studio rules.

Cara: I think the statement, "women tend to see chick flicks", I meant, "women are more likely to see movies labeled 'chick flicks' than men."

I think that was relatively clear, but okay, if people are going to make an issue of it, I'm happy to clarify what I meant. And I wasn't the first one to use the term "chick flick" here, but sure, we can use the term "romantic comedy" or what have you.

And sure, I liked "Titanic" too. And fine, I will admit I enjoyed "Sweet Home Alabama" too.

Mickle, someone had suggested that there weren't very many movies with "powerful" women in them, so I came up with a few. It wasn't a list of films with female leads. In quite a few of the films on the list, like the Matrix movies, the powerful female character was a supporting role. And it excluded a number of films with female leads where the character didn't kick ass.

Alasdair - No. Again, it was just a list of ass-kicking women movie characters. A list of movies with female leads would have been very different. Like last year there was The Devil Wears Prada, The Break-Up, Failure to Launch, The Queen, The Grudge, She's the Man... (and there were far fewer than 1,400 movies in wide-release last year).

But, OBVIOUSLY, there are far fewer movies with female leads than male leads.

Unfortunately, we do often have to look to sci-fi / fantasy genres to see portrayals of strong women characters. This is NOT an indictment of sci-fi writers or directors. They should be congratulated for it. Granted, strong female leads are pretty rare here too.

Also just because a movie is marketed towards women, or thwacked with that gawd-awful label of "chick-flick," it doesn't mean that it's a bad movie. Many of them are terrible, but some of them are highly entertaining, IMHO, and I don't think that I should have to hand in my feminist credentials for admitting such.

On the book front: Pippi Longstocking!!! (though I didn't realize it at the time). A few years later, it was "A Handmaid's Tale."

It seems to me that a better question to ask here, is "why don't audiences go to see films with female leads?" It's possible that the WB guy is a sexist asshole, but it's also possible that he's seen too many millions of dollars go into movies centered around females (kick-ass or not), and then bomb. I think it's more valuable to ask why that is happening. Perhaps it's that people like us, who think it's important for women to be in leading roles, don't go to the movies all that often, or we'd rather see French or Spanish films (which do, by the way, tend to have great female characters). Maybe great scripts aren't being written with women leads. Maybe nobody went to see the Brave One because the ads made it look tired and formulaic. I think we could all get behind the notion that it would be great to have more movies with awesome, real women as leads -- not just as the sexy co-star -- do well at the boxoffice.

roro80, I can say that I don't go see many movies with female leads because I rarely like romantic comedies or romantic dramas, and other types of films that include women as lead characters do in fact tend to look really, really bad. Or, as someone has pointed out, they are Sci-fi/Fantasy, which is fine, but something that have no personal interest in.

I'm not dying for more crappy movies with crappy female leads-- I'm dying for good movies with female leads. Hell, how often do we see movies up for the Best Picture Oscar that have female leads? Last year was surprising, in that 3 films nominated for best picture had prominent female characters, but two of those were based around an ensemble cast. The year before, Crash was the film with the most prominent female characters, and I think most would agree that the men were focused on much more carefully in that film. The year before that, there was Million Dollar Baby and Finding Neverland, where Kate Winslet was only a secondary lead character. More often than not, when such a film has prominent female characters the film is not actually about them, where as the movies with male leads are much more frequently about men. I will admit that I don't go to the movies often, and when I do, I want to see something really good. I'm not a movie buff, but I am a bit of a snob in that I like movies to be all meaningful and shit, but those don't really seem to be the kind of movies that have strong and prominent female characters.

I just watched the trailer for Brave One. I have to think no one saw it because it looked boring and depressing, and Foster and Howard are not big enough stars to overcome that.

Clarification: in my last comment, I commented on "crappy movies with crappy female leads" right after discussing romantic comedies, romantic dramas and sci-fi. Those weren't actually the films I was referring to (though I think that romantic comedies really are crappy more often than not). I was referring more to movies like The Brave One or Enough, where the movie is really just a copy of a male-centric films, but the "twist" is that it's a woman seeking revenge, this time!

Here's an interesting Sharon Waxman NYT story from earlier this year, "Hollywood's Shortage of Female Power."

I googled "chick flick" and "definition" and came up with this:
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/CHICKFLICK

Definition of a chick flick is "a movie that appeals to young women."

Are we to pretend that all movies appeal to both genders in the same numbers? I cannot think of a single medium of entertainment - books, movies, plays, ballet, operas, symphonies, rock bands - where there is no disparity in appeal on gender, race, socioeconomic status, or the like.

I, for one, gag at romantic comedies.* Nevertheless, I love movies like Legally Blonde, Ratatouille, Double Jeopardy, etc. that probably appeal to women more than men. BFD.

*I hate romantic comedies because they all seem to be incredibly demeaning to women. Anyone remember the scene in "My Best Friend's Wedding" when Cameron Diaz dumped her career as an architect for the guy? Remember when he went nuts at the suggestion that her career shouldn't take a backseat to his? Then he was described as "the man of both our dreams." Nightmares, more like it....

----

Movies with strong female leads, off the top of my head: Thomas Crowne Affair, Entrapment (although casting a woman twenty years younger that Sean Connery as a romantic interest = cliche and bad), Double Jeopardy, Cruel Intentions (although all the characters there were a little messed up), Chicago.

In cartoons/kids movies: Kim Possible, Spy Kids, Mulan.

"Mickle, someone had suggested that there weren't very many movies with "powerful" women in them.."

Thanks for the clarification, but I didn't really need it. I understood what both of you both said the first time around. (That isn't what the other person said, btw) And I still don't how your list is in any way a response to the complaint. (Neither the complaint made, nor the complaint you thought was being made.)

Were you under the impression that the person making the complaint just hadn't bothered looking around? It's not as if a large number of the movies on your list aren't well known by most of us that complain about such things.

You were either trying to give misleading data to shut down a valid complaint, or you were being insulting and assuming that people who complain about such things are too lazy to even do the most basic of research.

I don't care if it was either, and, or both. Just knock it off.

Plus, stop confusing "powerful women" and "powerful roles for women." There may be overlap, but it's not the same thing.

An update on that Warner Bros. thing is here. (The first part is rehash; the actual update is at the bottom.)

Oh please Mickle. If you understood what I meant, then why do you distort what I say? I never said anything like what you accused me of saying ... "Alaric, you can't just list a handful a movies and say, "see, movies of have women in them!"

You also write, "(That isn't what the other person said, btw)" Umm, it pretty much is. Halfmad wanted some sources, so I gave 'em to her. How is this insulting?

I've been v. clear what I meant by powerful -- physically powerful in the sense of being able to kick someone's ass. Of course there are other senses in which people can be powerful, and I guess halfmad meant in the sense of being strong or strong-willed.

Knock it off yourself, and quit distorting what I say and what I write.

Fenriswolf - I don't have a problem with movies being marketed on hotness. I mean, I like watching beautiful women. And it's not like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Will Smith, Vin Diesel and all the other male movie stars are tough on the eyes...

Well, first of all, I think movies would be a hell of a lot better if they WEREN'T marketed based on hotness and were instead marketed based on, you know, good plots and good acting and good cinematography and good special effects, but of course that's just my silly female opinion.

Furthermore, I'm sure you do realize that your comment is particularly ingenious because you suggest that because some people like to see "hot" men in movies, it's fair enough for men (ie YOU) to go around expecting actresses to be drop-dead gorgeous. Well, you and I both know goddamn well that women in movies (and life in general) are held to a MUCH higher standard of attractiveness than men. You might as well say that if women have to work harder than men in the corporate world, hey, it's okay because men are working too! If for some bizarre reason you don't believe that women in movies have to be hotter, you might want to check out this article. Or this article. Or Doris Roberts' testimony before the Senate from 2002. Or you might want to consider that I'm 5'4" and a size 5 and I've been called fat, and that I'm a 34D and I've been told my breasts aren't big enough, because people expect ordinary women to look like the ones they see in movies. Part of the reason, Alaric, that you can so easily name a decent number of actors who are considered hot is because beauty standards for men are much more flexible than they are for women. (But of course you know that; you were just hoping that we're all too dumb to realize it.)

Men can be considered attractive in a variety of ways -- they can be older and ruggedly handsome, younger and ruggedly handsome or younger and pretty, they can have long hair or short hair, be a little bit pudgy or very occasionally even fat, have discolorations in their skin, have facial hair or not (imagine if a Hollywood actress could be considered hot and not shave her legs or armpits!). So don't start with this "Life is fair because sometimes men are judged on their looks, too!" bullshit, because we all know there are huge discrepancies in how that works in practice. I realize that you want to feel good about judging women based primarily on shallow, fascist beauty standards, but it's time to stop kidding yourself. You have a fucked up view of women, and I'm beginning to realize that you're not here because you're interested in changing that.

More on the topic, although it's now confirmed that Warner Brothers really isn't (at least officially) going to refuse to have any more movies with female leads, I'd just like to say that, sadly, when it comes to mainstream movies I'd often rather NOT see a movie that has a female lead or supporting character, because female characters are generally written so horrendously and one-dimensionally by male scriptwriters. Of course, it would probably be different if there were more female writers and directors, but that's simply not the case right now. It makes me really depressed when I go to movies to think that's what men really think we're like, or perhaps what they'd like us to be like.

It may be a bit of a tangent, but one of my friends was in a creative writing class a few years ago where the TA, a lovely guy from the South, actually ended up telling the guys in class that it might be better for most of them to stop writing female characters because ALL of them were so horrible at it. And while it might be easy to get mad at the TA for not encouraging his male students to write better female characters, I saw some of the stories my friend brought home for peer critique, and I think the poor guy was just trying to save his sanity. He did work with them on it for a while, but apparently it didn't help much, if at all. Literally almost every story they wrote was about being at a coffee shop and having some stunningly beautiful woman strike up a conversation with him, and TA-DA! They find out that they're soulmates...But of course the story still ends somewhat ambiguously because that's the ARTSY way to do it. *head wall*

Apparently WB has emailed people and said "What, no, we're totally making three movies next year with women in the lead or in major supporting roles!"

Three.

THREE.

Out of 13 movies that I counted as being scheduled for release next year.

Yeah, I feel so much better now.

I strongly second the motion for alaric to go spend some more time on a 101 feminism blog. For someone who spends so much time here, you have no clue what feminism means. And you are consistently offensive and sexist on this board. Why are you here?

Posting "Barb Wire" as a movie with a powerful female lead? Pamela Anderson? REALLY? You really don't see why that does NOT count?

Sheesh.

ponies and rainbows, apparently you and I are both "just offended by reality" :)

Alaric, seriously. Go learn some more about feminism, and how to talk to and about women respectfully, and come back when you're ready to act like a civilized human being.

Hint: referring to a beautiful woman as "hot" and telling us that actresses' bodies ARE "consumable commodities" won't win you any points.

The reason they're not too keen on female leads is pretty simple, when you look at the audience.

If they have a male lead, the male audience members identify with him (in a Gary Stu sort of way), and the female audience members identify with him as well, though to a lesser extent, and in addition, they find him easy on the eyes more often than not.

If they have a female lead, then the female audience members identify with her (in a Mary Sue sort of way), and the male audience members, frankly, don't. They may be attracted to her, yes, but we don't teach males, as they're growing up, to identify with female role models the way we teach girls to identify with male role models.

Think about the way the father-daughter relationship is promoted, as compared with the mother-son relationship. "Daddy's girl" is a good thing, where "Momma's boy" is certainly a bad one in our society.

We view the opposite sex through the lens of our primary role model of that sex (chiefly, fathers for women, and mothers for men). If that relationship is distant, how can a person relate to the other sex except in sexual terms?

Ponies- it's fair enough for men (ie YOU) to go around expecting actresses to be drop-dead gorgeous.

This isn't what I said, which is that I sometimes go to movies because the actress is drop-dead gorgeous. (Notably, Nicole Kidman in the '90s.) There are plenty of actresses I like and movies I see where I don't find the actress gorgeous.

Well, you and I both know goddamn well that women in movies (and life in general) are held to a MUCH higher standard of attractiveness than men.

Really? All the A-list actors are incredibly, incredibly handsome, in my opinion. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Jude Law, Russell Crowe, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio... Tom Hanks isn't as incredibly attractive as the rest, but he's still good-looking.

You make it sound like beauty standards are set by a committee somewhere. You write in the passive voice to avoid any indication of who is doing the "considering" in this sentence:

Men can be considered attractive in a variety of ways -- they can be older and ruggedly handsome, younger and ruggedly handsome or younger and pretty...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, that women consider a wider range of men attractive than men find women attractive?

And actually, I think there are some very attractive older women in Hollywood. Sigourney Weaver, Candice Bergen, Diane Keaton, Kim Basinger - all over 50. There are some women I think who are "rugged" and hot, like Carrie-Ann Moss and (arguably rugged) Jennifer Garner. There are certainly many actresses I think are hot with short hair. (And actually I dated a woman in college who didn't shave her armpits or legs. She was still hot, IMHO. But probably other guys have different beauty standards).

I would agree most men don't find women attractive if they are even a little bit overweight, while women are more forgiving on that count. That's life - we all have the right to decide for ourselves who we find attractive. Deal with it...

So don't start with this "Life is fair because sometimes men are judged on their looks, too!" bullshit,

uhhh... ideally people shouldn't be judged by their attractiveness in the workplace when it's completely irrelevant to their job, although that does happen all the time. But looks are certainly very relevent for actors and actresses.... even _you_ should be able to admit that.

Buggle - If there is a specific page or three on the site you'd like me to read, I'll be happy to cooperate. (I did read the two links Ponies posted) I actually haven't seen Barb Wire, but I think she does kick ass in that movie. (Remember that is how I was defining powerful: capable of kicking someone's ass. I know there are other meanings to the term, but what can I say, I'm an action-hero fan). Anyway - why would Anderson not count? Because she has a large bosom?

DrkEyedCajn - I said that both actors and actresses bodies are consumable commodities. They are selling their looks, as well as their acting ability. I don't see anything wrong with the adjective "hot", which is applied to both attractive men and women.

I honestly don't think anyone has any right to call someone else's beauty standards "fascist" or judge them in any way. As human beings, we can't control who we find attractive. Some men are really into certain body types, hair colors or ethnicities. Some women really like big muscles (or big penises). Other women aren't into red-headed men. Still others aren't even into men!

And y'know what? To each their own.

Wow alaric, you dated a woman with ARMPIT hair? Sheesh, you really MUST be a feminist.

And you are posting the names of movies you haven't even seen, because you assume that they have powerful female lead roles? Then you yell at another poster who hasn't seen the movies. Hmmm, weird.

Really though-seriously-why are you here alaric? Are you trying to learn? If so, what? Reading through your posts, you don't seem very interested in understanding feminism. Rather, it seems you just want to argue with everyone else. So, what are you doing here, on a feminist blog?

Excuse me, Jessica, Ann, Samhita -- why is this jerk not banned yet? He's the epitome of the Nice Guy, a rape apologist, a condescending sexist. He's only interested in telling feminists how very wrong they are in their interpretations, not in considering their arguments. I haven't EVER seen him argue anything without being evasive and disingenuous. So please, enough.

Man, Zuzu would be all over this :)

Thanks ankathry- I'm wondering the same thing myself. Why is alaric still allowed to post here? I have seen far too many threads being taken over by his arguments-arguments that we can all hear over and over, if we want to. This is supposed to be a feminist place.

Oh no! He's posting stuff I disagree with! I can't deal!

I think I've always been very respectful to everyone here... have not engaged in the slightest bit of name-calling.

"Most men don't find women who are even a little bit overweight attractive..."

Ohhhkayyyy. Guess I'm about 2 lbs. away from Dumpsville.
I wonder how our species even survived after the period in which zaftig women were all the rage??

Alaric-you didn't answer my question. What do you get out of posting anti-feminist crap on a feminist blog? What are you hoping for out of this experience?

And no, you are not respectful. It takes more than not calling names to be respectful.

And, it's not that we/I disagree with what you are saying, and we can't "deal." It's that you are posting crap that we can read on every other f'ing blog on the planet. This is a FEMINIST blog, for FEMINISTS.

So I ask again-what are you going here?

Off of what Werechick said (I am not even getting into the rest, it's a waste of time and energy):

In my children's lit class, I remember talking about how girls are accustomed to identifying with both male and female characters, whereas boys only relate to male characters, generally speaking, of course. It had to do with the way girls from a young age are used to relating in terms of the male ideal while boys don't have to imagine a position other than their maleness. I believe this is the same reason that JK Rowling had to use her initials rather than her name, Joanne, because her publishers thought boys wouldn't read a book by a woman.

I think because of the lack of dynamic female characters, women are somewhat forced to identify with male characters, making male leads more lucrative than female leads, who most men won't identify with at all.

Buggle - Here is part of Feministing’s comments policy (the whole thing can be found in the “About Us� section of the site):

We view Feministing as a platform for not only discussion among feminists and allies, but for reaching (rational, not hateful) people who may not agree with every word we write. However, we require that discussion in comments should be respectful and be directed toward the ideas and argument, not the person. All comments with hate speech, personal attacks, or offensive language will be deleted.

Alaric is trying to have a rational conversation. It is, in fact, others here speaking out against him who seem content to resort to personal attacks just because he has the nerve to not agree with every word written here and to research his posts thoroughly.

Oh gee, thanks. Now I see why it is ok to post women-hating stuff on a feminist blog.

Still waiting to hear from Alaric on why he is here, at this blog.

I'm not sure that alaric qualifies as rational, and not hateful. A lot of the things he has written are hateful, in my eyes. But I'm sure he appreciates you jumping in here to defend him, poor little man getting yelled at by the meanie feminists.

Anyway, I'll go back to reading. This is an interesting thread if one skips over the attacks and accusations.

What attacks and accusations, noname?

Fine, Buggle, I’ll humor you with a little taste. Here is an example of one attack and one accusation (to keep it short):

Attack: “You know what? I'm going back to my original statement of SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.� – DrkEyedCajn

Accusation: “You were either trying to give misleading data to shut down a valid complaint, or you were being insulting and assuming that people who complain about such things are too lazy to even do the most basic of research.� - Mickle

Would you like to return to the discussion at hand, now?

No, the thread has been diverted, as usual, for Alaric. Who must be a troll, since he hasn't responded to my questions.

Noname-what do you suggest that feminists do when a man comes onto a feminist blog and takes up a whole bunch of space (male entitlement) to write ignorant statements about women? We should be polite and civil? I don't think so.

Here are a few attacks for you:

From Alaric "And actually, what is wrong with being a powerful girly-girl? Like the Charley's Angels? It is a sharp contrast from the tough, ripped, and arguably unfeminine Linda Hamilton-style powerful women."

Unfeminine? Women with muscles are unfeminine. That is a sexist statement. Let's see if I can find another.

Alaric "Women tend to see chick flicks, tho, so that's what gets made..."

And,

Alaric "I don't see anything incompatible with modern feminism and appreciating beautiful, competent women. I thought all that real-feminists-don't-wear-makeup-or-shave-their-legs stuff was passe. It's okay to be a feminist and HOT now... didn't you get the memo?"

And still more,

Alaric "This maybe a men-are-from-venus etc. moment... of course by powerful I assumed ass-kicking."

"Apparently you are just offended by reality DrkEyedCajn. It is not men who go to see movies like Sweet Home Alabama, Bridget Jones's Diary, Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, Maid In Manhattan, Wedding Planner and who will see the new "Sex In the City" movie in droves. Guys, in general, detest these movies. We might go with a girlfriend so that we can get to choose what to see the next time.

I mean, seriously, like, duh. They are called chick flicks for a reason: women tend to see them! Do you really doubt this? Do I really have to find you audience numbers? Do you really not understand that I was not saying that _every_ women likes chick flicks?

And actresses bodies _are_ a consumable commodity. Men's, too. I'm not going to apologize for finding women attractive, or that I sometimes to see movies 'cause they star a hot actress."

Yuck.

Noname-why are you sticking up for him? What is your stake in this? Just want to make sure there is room on here for ignorant men to spout off their BS?

Noname - butt out. Mickle's statement that you quoted is not an ad hominem attack. It attacks alaric's consistently poor arguments here.

Rest of board - Apologies for not being able to stifle my gut reaction to alaric's comments yesterday. I usually don't stoop to ad hominem attacks. You'll notice I took a nice long break from the thread yesterday before coming back this morning.

alaric - learn some feminism, either on this blog or elsewhere, or go away.

Noname - butt out. Mickle's statement that you quoted is not an ad hominem attack. It attacks alaric's consistently poor arguments here.

Rest of board - Apologies for not being able to stifle my gut reaction to alaric's comments yesterday. I usually don't stoop to ad hominem attacks. You'll notice I took a nice long break from the thread yesterday before coming back this morning.

alaric - learn some feminism, either on this blog or elsewhere, or go away. Also, actors and actresses are not prostitutes. Do not degrade their profession by insinuating that they are.

Noname - butt out. Mickle's statement that you quoted is not an ad hominem attack. It attacks alaric's consistently poor arguments here.

Rest of board - Apologies for not being able to stifle my gut reaction to alaric's comments yesterday. I usually don't stoop to ad hominem attacks. You'll notice I took a nice long break from the thread yesterday before coming back this morning.

alaric - learn some feminism, either on this blog or elsewhere, or go away. Also, actors and actresses are not prostitutes. Do not degrade their profession by insinuating that they are.

Eek, triple post! Sorry! My cat started walking on my keyboard...

“Noname-what do you suggest that feminists do when a man comes onto a feminist blog and takes up a whole bunch of space (male entitlement) to write ignorant statements about women? We should be polite and civil?� – Buggle

Yes. If the idea is to discuss issues, then polite and civil would be an ideal to strive for (not that any of us are perfect, of course). As for the quotes you presented, I don’t see any personal attacks against posters there (unless Linda Hamilton is reading). “Apparently you are just offended by reality DrkEyedCajn� comes close, but after being told to shove things up his ass by this particular poster, I am willing to give Alaric a pass on this one (whether the editors agree is up to them). Also, it is hardly an example of male entitlement to post to a forum open to the public.

“Noname-why are you sticking up for him? What is your stake in this? Just want to make sure there is room on here for ignorant men to spout off their BS?� – Buggle

I come here to read interesting discussions with multiple points of view (many of which differ from mine). I could get most of the same news items from mainstream sources, but I appreciate being exposed to alternative worldviews. Banning posters because their opinions differ can only hurt such discourse. Ganging up and personally attacking them doesn’t help, either.

Ok, the only person that "personally attacked" alaric has already apologized. And really, I'd love to tell alaric off, and I was happy that someone did.

When someone is being sexist, and will not listen or consider anyone else's opinion, then I really question their reason for being here. And I'm not going to be polite and civil when someone is posting really offensive, sexist stuff. I pointed out the offensive comments.

It IS an example of male entitlement when a non-feminist male comes onto a feminist blog and proceeds to post long long posts in many threads that are sexist, offensive, and tend to divert the thread. That is a perfect example!

Interesting that you will give alaric a pass on being rude, but you won't give any actual feminists a pass. You'll give another male a pass, but not a female. Interesting.

It is sexist to suggest that a muscular woman is "unfeminine." Indeed, the entire notion of femininity is sexist and disgusting.

It is dismissive to tell another poster that they are overly sensitive and offended by reality. It is also a very common tactic used by men to discredit women.

Saying that anyone's body (an actor) is a consumable commodity is sexist and dehumanizing and disgusting.

Stating one's sexual preferences and what he likes in a woman-not appropriate on a feminist blog.

Passing off his sexism as "men are from mars" is complete bullshit. Not going to work here.

Also, generalizing about who sees what movie= just stupid. Yes, some women watch movies that sexist asshats refer to as "chick flicks." Using the term "chick flick" is sexist and derogatory.

I could go on, but I'm bored.

No one wants to ban alaric because his opinions differ. WE want to ban him because he's a sexist pig who takes up a TON of time, space, and attention.

DrkEyedCajn: This is a public space, I'm rather offended by you telling other posters to butt out. if you want a private discussion, I'd recommend taking it to email.

I initially thought alaric had a point, but frankly his sweeping problematic statements, and condescending tone lost me a while back. I think he has, however, refrained from personal attacks (I could be wrong there are many many comments) something that can not be said of some of the other consistently combative commenters.

However, turning around and attacking noname and demanding she justify her participation and inferring unsavory motives is total bullshit. Shutting down dissent through insinuation is some seriously oppressive backbiting.

I get it now (I think). You think that comments you think are sexist or offensive ARE personal attacks. I don't agree, but at least I get where you are coming from.

My last comment was meant for Buggle, not Roni.

OK, enough with the menz and their hurt feelings.

Can I go back to the 'chick flick' part of the thread? Because I have to say, I'm no more eager to see most of the dreck that gets marketed to women specifically than any of male posters on this board are. Every once in a while I rent one of these films in the hopes that I'll see a film that says something intelligent about adult relationships. Needless to say I'm almost always disappointed. Hollywood's problem here isn't only that they need to get more diverse voices to write and helm films... they also need to hire more talented people to helm these films.

An observation about chick films. If Darjeeling Express featured three sisters rather than three brothers it would suddenly be a marginalized 'chick' product, rather than an arty film marketed to all young urbanites. And isn't that interesting?

That goes back to the earlier point someone made about women being socialized to identify with many different perspectives while men never have to set down their male lens. When I was acting I imagined myself as Hamlet or Laertes many times, but I doubt many male actors have spent much time imagining themselves as Ophelia or Gertrude.

No, I'm not saying that alaric made "personal attacks" (except for what he said to drkeyedcajun, which was most certainly a personal attack, as well as a sexist, demeaning comment). I'm saying that he is posting anti-feminist stuff on a feminist blog. And that it is offensive. Personal attacks are not the only bad thing a person can do online. Does that make sense?

Really though-what ARE we supposed to do when men come on here and start posting offensive crap? We are supposed to stay calm and collected while they continuously post sexist crap? When is it enough? When has a male poster proved himself as being inappropriate for a blog?

And yeah, this is a public space, but there are plenty of comments that don't see the light of day, because they are horrible. So it's not like anyone can come here and say whatever they want.

So Alaric has managed to not swear at any of us, yet he has repeatedly posted sexist, offensive stuff. But HE'S the good one, because he hasn't called anyone a name yet? I find this extremely interesting- feminist women willing to defend sexist men, at the expense of other feminist women. Blah.

Buggle: Here is how you introduced Alaric’s quotes. You were responding to my post about personal attacks and accusations:

"Here are a few attacks for you:" - Buggle

Hopefully you understand why I thought you considered the referenced quotes to be attacks, now.

Forcing this thread to become a discussion of your hurt feelings is a hijack.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. Not really attacks, but just ridiculous things to be posting on a feminist blog. Plenty there to anger women. Plenty there to offend, dismiss, and condescend.

Would you agree that he has made sexist comments?

Buggle - OK.

sgzax - My feelings aren't hurt, and it was a discussion, not a monologue. I didn’t force anything. Good points in your previous post, though; especially regarding Darjeeling Express.

sgzax-Excellent points on a Wes Anderson gender switch.

buggle - Yes, some of alaric's point were sexist and offensive. However, there are plenty of women on here who have made comments I find sexist and offensive. My issue is with the content of the comments and the responses, I care little for the gender of a commenter. You seem rather hung up on your impression women are siding with men against women. I think putting gender before content is an untenable position when arguing for equality.

I think we can all hopefully agree that there are several things that posters here can do to make themselves unwelcome. Personal attacks are the most obvious. Repeated and deliberate hijacking are another. And I think what certain posters here (not just on this specific thread) are guilty of is pushing thinly-veiled anti-feminist rhetoric which may not necessarily be vulgar but still is inappropriate on this site. From where I am sitting at least, it is not a matter of disagreements or lively discussions between various feminist perspectives which can include various degrees of (dis)agreement but are at least interesting and often enlightening. However this, once again, has become a debate between a feminist perspective and a decidedly anti-feminist perspective, which has no place on this blog and is a complete waste of time no matter how calm the posts may be.

fatsweatybetty- First of all, I LOVE your name! Love it!

Secondly, well said. I agree completely.

Also, I find it extremely interesting that Alaric hasn't posted. I'm sure he's sitting back, pleased that he hijacked another thread, and got an argument going.

In the future, I'll ignore him, but I really believe that he does not belong here.

Roni- I think that sex does matter, because a man coming into a feminist space and taking up tons and tons of room writing anti-feminist crap-that matters. If it were a woman, I'd still be mad. But yeah, I get even more mad if it is a male who doesn't listen to anyone and just goes about posting sexist crap. He clearly is NOT here to learn. If he was, it would show. There are lots of males on these boards, and the ones that truly want to learn are fine with me-great! Alaric is not here to learn, he's here to show all us little stupid women how wrong we are. Kinda like oenophile.

How much of my life do I have to waste learning from anti-feminist men? We all have advanced degrees in patriarchy. Now we'd like to tear it down. Sorry if people espousing anti-feminist perspectives get caught in the crossfire, but really... where do you think you are?

Don't. Feed. The. Troll.

buggle-

Thanks, it came from a kinda funny but mostly offensive ICP song and somehow for some God-unknown reason it became my nickname in high school. I figured I'd just embrace it.

I also just wanted to clarify my last comment. I am not calling for Jessica et. al. to ban posters/trolls like alaric. I would much prefer that the posters themselves have the decency to either stop posting anti-feminist crap or stop posting all together. If they genuinely want to learn about feminism then there is still plenty they can learn by just reading the posts by actual feminists. That is why I am here, to see other feminist perspectives and arguments that I may have never considered. However, I hate having to scroll through 100+ comments when half of them have no feminist nutritional value. And as for alaric's last comment (which has somehow disappeared) that we should try to learn from him...yeah, I'm with sgzax on that one. Been there, done that, ready to move on. With that being said, this is one of the few places on the blogosphere/anywhere by and for feminists so to those who aren't here to share in this with us, well there are tons of other places ideal for you. Take that as encouragement promote your anti-feminist thoughts elsewhere.