sexist, racist, and heterosexist indoctrination as "just entertainment"

In my last post I rambled (way too long really, but oh well) about how much I love movies. In this one, I have to say how much I hate the idea of films being packaged to "target audiences" namely when filmakers assume certain sadistic excuses for entertainment suit women better, warranting the horridly sexist label of...the chick flick.

I cannot explain how much I hate that term. So I won't. Instead, in one of my numerous rants to my husband, I came up with a term of my own to describe how much I also loathe movies that are packaged to men, i.e. the "dick flick." Why the derisive term? Because I refuse to watch films that are designed to sell the idea of woman as servant, sex object, deserving of (and asking to be) controlled, raped, abused, or even obsessed over. What the hell kind of movies are "XXX" and "The Fast and The Furious" anyhow, if not dick flicks? Which part of James Bond appeals to women (other than the stupid assumption that women as an audience are going to want to see it because James Bond is so obviously attractive). What about all of the Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movies...(they couldn't have picked a more perfectly fitting title!) ?
And while I think there are many talented actresses in film today, casting any descent actress in the obligatory chic flick is a waste of their time/talents and people's money. But are all movies that depict such violence against women as tragic but socially or contextually acceptable worthy to be termed dick flicks?

Not necessarily. What is the draw in these movies? They say, action...adventure...whatever. This was the same tagline used to describe a "family film" that is "Fun for everyone" that I happened to enjoy (initially): "Pirates of the Carribbean." For me, it was cool, right up to that point where the lead female character is slapped, later groped, forced on display and so fucking unbelievably typecast it hurts. What, you didn't catch that? I did, specifically because I saw the movie, this Disney movie, with my son and with my best friend and her three daughters (who have experienced what Jackson Katz termed "violent masculinity" first hand). But what does seeing an attractive white woman slapped (by a big black man no less) and treated like a sex object or at the very least, a possession, teach children? Is this to fit the "historical context" when women were possessions and class and racial roles were more blatantly obvious? If this is the case, then why does the big black man get to hit her and not be killed for it and why does he get to order around (for lack of a better term) the two weirdo Pirate buddies? This aspect reminded me a little of Othello, where we the Moor does have power but is nevertheless a violent man who kills his faithful white woman at the provocation of her supposed infidelity. Perhaps the point is that so we see how bad Pirates were? Well what does that mean then when at the end we're supposed to cheer Will's decision to side with the Pirates? Wait there are good Pirates and bad Pirates right? The womanizer vs. the abuser? Well gee, where DO you draw that line anyhow? I mean Jack Sparrow steals, lies, and even holds the woman hostage, not to mention all of the reasons why the other women in the film slap him and why he thinks he "probably deserved it." But he's the "hero" of the story, right? It is admittedly pathetic that I can't even remember the name of the female character. I think though, this is because I couldn't buy into her part of the story quite as well, as she was simply, primarily, a reactive character in a male dominated "drama."

So what's the big deal? If I don't like it, I don't have to see it, right? Well...it is a big deal because these images permeate our culture and shape our views of one another, our roles in relationships and our ability to relate to one another. If you want to watch a movie that actually has something to say on this (and put far better than I am doing here, I'm sure) watch Jackson Katz's "Tough Guise" film. Better yet, host a movie night and invite every dick flick and chick flick fan you can find and have them watch it with you. Also, check out bell hooks' book "Outlaw Culture" and Sut Jhally's film "Advertising and the End of the World." The fact that we can watching women being struck in films and it not evoking anger or even disgust (and don't let the "Pirates" PG-13 rating fool you, for Mulan doesn't fare much better) is and should be troublesome. Yet the criticism of the objectification of women usually surrounds voyeurism and violence. This criticism should include the indoctrination of this violence as being so commonplace it becomes normal. It doesn't evoke outrage. We emphathize with the not so bad guy vs. the woman who gets tossed around between them like a rag doll. She is beautiful, yet her empowerment comes not from her ability to fight but her ability to choose heterosexuality and take the likeable loser (he is, as Jack points out, a criminal) over the accomplished officer.
But it is, just entertainment, right? Hey I admit, I liked the movie until I actually thought about it and my reactions to the scenes in which she is slapped and reduced to being an object of other's pleasure and expectation. As much as I love Kevin Spacey as an actor and enjoyed the film "The Life of David Gale" especially, I still find fault with the part in the movie that shows him being "framed" for rape. This is not because it is impossible to conceive a woman might (what fake being raped?) but that the statistics of reported rapes and rape convictions alone prove that women are less likely to even report rape yet alone try to prosecute a rapist. The structures (although improving) offer rape victims little support and they have to prove victimization, so that the accused ends up having more credibility and rights than the victim.
So to even suggest that something like that might happen is bothersome to me. I'm not saying it never has or never will happen but that to portray it the way that movie does, as a charge orchestrated by a cunning woman who wanted sex against an innocent yet obliging man, well that just bothers me. Yet, if you simply follow the rhetoric surrounding the Bryant rape case, you see it again. Whether or not the woman was raped, consented to sex, or was opportunistic and money hungry seems irrelevant if you listen to the media spin on the case. What is important is that we empathize with Bryant whether or not until he is PROVEN guilty. What is most tragic to me is that until he is PROVEN guilty, the woman who is accusing him of rape will never be considered (by the media and general public at least) INNOCENT. Fear of having to stand trial, facing and accusing someone of rape and not being believed is the most stigmatizing aspect of rape and the one factor that more often than not, actually keeps rape victims from reporting it.

These things matter also because children DO get these messages by internalizing them.
Even though my son has never seen these movies, we did watch "Pirates" together. Though he had it in his head long before that film (from Disney movies and toy packaging no less!) that there are fundamental differences between that which is catagorized as being for boys/manly/masculine and that which is catagorized as being for girls/girly/feminine. He doesn't want anyone to confuse him as liking something that might be perceived as girlish, so he criticizes heavily toys, films, and attitudes in girls and other boys, all things girlish or feminine. He also (thanks to the elementary school playground) has formed interesting opinions about homosexuality, religion (particularly Christianity) and marriage. What bothers me is this indoctrination of normality and the nonchalant attitude of which certain structures view and further this view of what is normal or how to be normal/acceptable/good. Imagine for one moment if I went to my son's school and tried to stand on the playground teaching students about gays and lesbians in a positive light, or if I tried to argue that gays and lesbians should be able to marry (if they choose to) and that there really SHOULD be an enforcable separation between Church and State which actually extends to schools, if not the White House! I wonder how well that would go over. Obviously it wouldn't and that is my point, that is why I find such indoctrination infuriating and that is why I'm ranting about it here. How does this pertain to human rights and cultural myopia? Trace the history of genocide and hate crimes. It is easy to see the damage inflicted by the catagorization and indoctrinization of norms that are meant to dehumanize others to the point of exclusion and extermination, particularly if and when such catagories and norms go unquestioned. Think about it.

To me, just by labeling something a chick flick (or a dick flick for that matter) you are reinforcing catagories of norms that dehumanize and stereotype. But what does one little word matter, anyhow? The answer to this could be found in asking if Ebert or any other film critic would ever use my term "dick flick" to describe/discuss the genre of films marketed specifically to men, with as much abandon as "chick flick"? Maybe I should email him and see (if he responds at all) just how quickly he would turn it down.

peace!