Posted on 08/05/2005 5:44:26 AM PDT by OESY
...Whatever the merits of [gender differences elsewhere, in] movies... the classic trope of female vulnerability and male strength has been upended and replaced with the childish and somewhat delusional notion that women can surpass men in every area of competition.
One of this summer's biggest movies, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," about a married couple who don't realize that they are both paid assassins, stars Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and received a lot of buzz for the supposedly heated off-screen romance between the two actors. Less remarked upon, however, was the violence their characters inflict on each other onscreen and the eventual quasi-emasculation of Mr. Smith.
During the course of the movie, Ms. Jolie's character tries to run over Mr. Pitt's with her car, plants a bomb on him during a sultry tango and knifes him in the leg. As the two struggle to kill each other within the confines of their suburban home, Mrs. Smith repeatedly shoots at Mr. Smith while tormenting him with remarks about his inferiority. But Mr. Smith is equally prepared for physical combat with a woman: He punches Mrs. Smith several times in the face and torso, shoots at her, throws her across the room and, in the most disturbing scene, kicks her several times when she is on the floor....
But these new girl-fight movies are unsatisfactory on another level -- they are less entertaining. In old movies, women often outmaneuvered men, of course, but by outsmarting them, not outboxing them. When Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant sparred in a screwball comedy, or Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire danced around each other in a musical, it was brain, not brawn, that led to feminine triumph....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Movie critic (among other things) Steve Sailer has written about this, and I think he has correctly identified the major reason for this new trend in Hollywood where women engage in absurdly unrealistic fights with men. His theory is that it has very little to do with girl-power and appealing to women in the audience, but rather is to play to the young male audience who likes to see women doing such things because it fuels other types of fantasies.
Personally, I think its a bit of both, but whatever the case, it has gotten to the point where its almost comical to watch its so ludicrous. If you want to tell me that, for example, Jennifer Garner's character on Alias could use skill and training to beat up an unskilled and untrained man, then fine; but its ridiculous to say she could trade punches with men. That's my biggest gripe with this whole trend (that and the tendency to make the women more of a man than the men), that it presents this completely unrealistic world where women can take punches from men and keep fighting.
That made it relatively easy to highlight the problem of Domestic Violence. Some guy is punching his wife in the face? There was no excuse or justification -- the guy was a creep.
But (some) women changed.
And attitudes changed.
Now -- what fun! -- we get to see Brad Pitt punch Angelina Jolie and repeatedly kick while she's down on the floor. What a great age we've entered into. [/sarcasm]
The Page You Requested Is Available Only to Subscribers
Somewhat? I'll say. Interesting construction, sort of like "somewhat pregnant."
The truth is that we are getting real mediocrity out of women these day, but we do not want to admit it.
Feminist do not seem to understand that they will be held accountable for their actions and expected to deliver on their claims.
In middle age, I am watching a whole group of first wave boomer feminist fumble professionally and at home.
There are going to be some very unhappy "women" in a few years.
If I seen another movie in which a 120 lb women beats the snot out of three guys who each have 100 lbs on her I'm going to puke.
As a man I know that if I hit my wife I'd break her jaw with the first punch. That's on the long list of why I'd never do such a thing, even in the worst martial spat, but pretty far down even so.
Well, if you turn on the TV or go see virtually any movie, make sure you have a chamber pot nearby. That silliness has become pervasive.
"Once upon a time, the admonition was: "Boys don't hit girls. Ever." "
We're on the same page!
I was taught that, and ANY man who would hit a woman is a low-life, scumbag, coward who should be jailed.
But now... women see that stuff on the screen and some actually believe it. It's difficult to comprehend what the strength difference in a man versus a woman really means until it is experienced. So, sadly, this leads to some brazen young women into testing men in a fight. This is a bad idea, a very bad idea for a lot of reasons.
What a crazy world. Now I understand why older folks would just shake their head at things when I was young. :)
That's a good point about Hollywood heeding the Left's call, and they are about to do it for one of their ultimate goals -- the election of Hillary to the Presidency.
There is no doubt in my mind that this goal is the chief reason behind the timely arrival of that new show "Commander in Chief" about the first female President. I think the show's creator/producer is the same guy who did that wretched leftist movie "The Contender" a few years ago. It starts airing in just a few weeks, and if it catches on like the awful 'West Wing' did, then it will have 3 years to propagandize on behalf of Hillary. The fact that the show plays up the most masculine aspect of the Presidency in its title, that aspect which will probably be the hardest for a Leftie like Hillary to sell herself on, is surely no coincidence.
Most people don’t realize the strength difference between men and women. I’m a fit but not bulky 6’ 165lbs. I lift weights and I can bench more than I weigh, but I’m far from a imposing sight. An erstwhile GF thought she was fit and tried to pick up one of the 50lbs dumbbells I work out with. Something I can curl one handed 5-7 times required both hands and a substantial effort from her to lift once.
Exactly.
And I think most women know from a hundred different real life experiences that what they see on tv and in movies is just silly, but I do wonder, as others here have, if young girls see this nonsense and actually come to believe it has any connection to reality.
Oh people...stop overreacting. You are making far too much out of this. This isn't new. Anyone remember CHARLIE'S ANGELS? How about some of the female characters in 007 movies? Wonderwoman? Catwoman? This isn't new. It's just a grittier, cooler version of an old idea. I remember the horror that emerged after "War of the Roses" came out, with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner beating the hell out of each other. What is different here? And all this chest puffing about how you fellas can kick the $hit out of women...yeah, no kidding. Nothing like stating the obvious. The characters in these movies tweak a side of both men and women that make them feel good. Women feel empowered, men think the characters are sexy for whatever reasons that I wouldn't know because I'm a woman. Maybe it will make a woman take up some activity that might enhance her ability to defend herself, or make her consider self defense classes, or shooting sports. Probably not, but maybe. That's about as intense a reaction as anyone will see from a rational woman to these kinds of films. It's certainly not going to make women think they can start a fight wtih a guy and win. That's just stupid--and on the whole, women are just not that dumb. Ultimately though, it's just fantasy, just for fun. It is, after all, only a movie.
In other words, women are considered "liberated" when they become more like men.
This man doesn't know either. The only men who would submit to being physically humiliated by a women are the very, very, few sick S&M types.
Let me clarify what I meant--men are stimulated by powerful female characters. Think Angelina Jolie in Tombraider. Or Uma Thurman in Kill Bill. Actually, I suspect men probably like Angelina Jolie or Uma Thurman in just about anything.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith was an obvious PC avoidable turkey from the first 30 second commercial.
It was OBVIOUS for the commercial they tried to edit out the pc in favor of the Bang and Boom special effects.
Thanks for posting.
It wasn't Lara Croft's powers men noticed. Men aren't stimulated by powerful women.
"Maybe someone can explain how women are "liberated" from traditional restrictions by being forced to excel at activites previously owned by MEN. Doesn't that imply that excellence in WOMEN'S roles is somehow trivial, and that the only measure of worth is the MALE yardstick? And that is gynocentric how?????
In other words, women are considered "liberated" when they become more like men."
You're exactly right-- to be "liberated", women are supposed to become like men. Unfortunately, this happened because the culture has spent the last 40 years denigrating the work that women have traditionally done in raising children and making a warm, welcoming home for their families. In contrast, all of the important, challenging and interesting work was supposedly done outside the home, out in the world. Young girls and women hear these messages over and over again, and unfortunately, they usually believe it.
Some of us, those who have both stayed home with children and gone out to work, know the truth and we tell our daughters. Nothing I did in my 17 years of holding relatively highly compensated office jobs will have even a fraction of the impact on the world that raising my two children will have. The nature of their characters, which I had a big part in shaping, will impact the world through their children, and their children's children for generations to come. As a young woman I didn't understand this, but I hope that my daughters do. My regret is that I put too much of my time and energy towards the unimportant work, and too little towards my family. Hopefully, though, it was enough.
I will say that 40 years of so-called women's liberation has done nothing but make women's lives harder and less fulfilling. And, it is far more of a "man's world" today than it ever was before.
Like my husband and I say, the "sexual revolution" was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place". ;) It's way past time to call the whole thing off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.