Objectification of women

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Objectification of women

    Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
    When I use "PC" it's in reference to things like the idiocy of this thread.
    (snipped a lot of words that amount to nothing but a straw man argument)

    Interesting that your primary interest appears to be in shoving unreasonable words in the mouths of people who disagree with you so you can call them idiots.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Objectification of women

      Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
      When I use "PC" it's in reference to things like the idiocy of this thread.

      "Good golly, I can't have John just woo Mary, because that might objectify women. I'll have to find the PC way to do it. Maybe John and Mary could be competing in a cliff climbing contest and she, of course, has to beat him, because having her lose would objectify women. Then he could become attracted to her --- NO! -- HELL NO!!!, can't do that -- John being attracted to her would definitely objectify her. Sooooo..... hmmmmm.... maybe she has to make the first move -- but he can't really look at her, because he might think she's good looking and, yep, objectifying her again. Maybe we could swing it if we just made John blind. And deaf, so he doesn't think she has a sexy voice -- which would be a serious objectification of a woman! So.... BLIND AND DEAF John would have to find some way to communicate with Mary -- but actual contact between them would be verboten, because goodness knows what wildly objectionable women objectification could be happening with that sort of carrying on. Maybe it would be best to completely leave John out and have Mary compete in the cliff climbing contest with a gender-neutral, alien being? And when she wins, a crowd of gender-neutral, alien beings could cheer for her -- but not in a way that objectifies women. But how can I be sure to do that? Surely some people would think the gender-neutral, alien beings cheering for a woman's accomplishment (for gawd knows what lewd and insidious purpose) might also also be a subtle way to objectify a woman. Not to mention I'd have to make it obvious (in some way) that the cliff-climbing, gender-neutral, alien being wasn't intentionally throwing the contest to pander to Mary and thereby objectify her. Maybe I shouldn't include Mary or any other woman? That's it -- I'll just have John and a bunch of other men -- who never mention women at all -- not even a little bit. It might seem a little strange, but as they say, 'If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out!' The only thing is... what if, beyond all odds, someone makes the movie and it's up for some Academy Award, and when I go up to accept the Oscar for Best Picture I get booed because the movie didn't include any parts for women? I don't know if I take that kind of confrontation. Maybe it's best if I don't write anything at all."
      If you just want to write movies about dudes staring at chicks, go ahead. We're not stopping you. You'll probably even find someone who wants to make it.

      Everyone else in this thread is talking about how to make our writing more accessible to a diverse audience. If that doesn't interest you, move on.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Objectification of women

        Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
        When I use "PC" it's in reference to things like the idiocy of this thread.

        "Good golly, I can't have John just woo Mary, because that might objectify women. I'll have to find the PC way to do it. Maybe John and Mary could be competing in a cliff climbing contest and she, of course, has to beat him, because having her lose would objectify women. Then he could become attracted to her --- NO! -- HELL NO!!!, can't do that -- John being attracted to her would definitely objectify her. Sooooo..... hmmmmm.... maybe she has to make the first move -- but he can't really look at her, because he might think she's good looking and, yep, objectifying her again. Maybe we could swing it if we just made John blind. And deaf, so he doesn't think she has a sexy voice -- which would be a serious objectification of a woman! So.... BLIND AND DEAF John would have to find some way to communicate with Mary -- but actual contact between them would be verboten, because goodness knows what wildly objectionable women objectification could be happening with that sort of carrying on. Maybe it would be best to completely leave John out and have Mary compete in the cliff climbing contest with a gender-neutral, alien being? And when she wins, a crowd of gender-neutral, alien beings could cheer for her -- but not in a way that objectifies women. But how can I be sure to do that? Surely some people would think the gender-neutral, alien beings cheering for a woman's accomplishment (for gawd knows what lewd and insidious purpose) might also also be a subtle way to objectify a woman. Not to mention I'd have to make it obvious (in some way) that the cliff-climbing, gender-neutral, alien being wasn't intentionally throwing the contest to pander to Mary and thereby objectify her. Maybe I shouldn't include Mary or any other woman? That's it -- I'll just have John and a bunch of other men -- who never mention women at all -- not even a little bit. It might seem a little strange, but as they say, 'If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out!' The only thing is... what if, beyond all odds, someone makes the movie and it's up for some Academy Award, and when I go up to accept the Oscar for Best Picture I get booed because the movie didn't include any parts for women? I don't know if I take that kind of confrontation. Maybe it's best if I don't write anything at all."
        Yeah, I don't think anyone actually said anything like that in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're responding to an extreme that you've seen elsewhere and/or made up. In which case, like, yeah, don't take it too far. Which nobody said to do, but you know, in case you need to hear that.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Objectification of women

          Okay, I think this discussion has run its course.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Objectification of women

            Originally posted by cvolante View Post

            Do you think a movie about love or a rom com or a romance or whatever can escape the wrath of feminist theorists? If so, how? (For example, the theme song for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend gets all meta and calls them sexist for calling her that.) Or does a writer just move on and know this person isn't the audience?
            As a female I tend to think the "feminist wrath- is sort of a mask. You could drive yourself crazy trying to satisfy everyone. I mean, the whole point of romance is to be romantic, right? But the caveat is romance is different for everyone. It's an internal process. Some like candles, some like arguments. Instead, I think what's important to focus on is your theme or the angle your story explores...

            For example, "Sleepless in Seattle-. Is it a film about love? No. It's a story about moving on and finding peace with it. That's the angle it explores. Here, love takes a back seat but it's still felt throughout the story.


            Now take a different film "Leap Year-. Is it a film about love? Again, no. It's a story about giving up control and letting life happen in unexpected ways.


            So, pre-identifying angle for writing can be challenging. IMHO, I think a safe bet is to solidly learn your driving genre and the typical viewer expectations.


            Just two cents, I don't really know anything, I'm surfing
            life happens
            despite a few cracked pots-
            and random sunlight

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Objectification of women

              Thanks for all of your thoughtful responses.
              The Sleepless in Seattle comment is an interesting angle.
              I do think that in Love, Actually the whole point of the movie is to depict love in all its various forms - whether it's nimrod sleazy singer guy and his friend or that cute little kid with first love or Liam Neeson getting over his wife...
              But most rom coms have a different kind of focus and are not, of course, about just love.

              Thanks again. I realized I should probably re-read Billy Mernit. That should help, too. In the mean time, my "friendship ending argument" didn't end the friendship. We just shant be discussing Love Actually or Richard Curtis any time soon.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Objectification of women

                yes. the funny thing is when you're watching these films you don't realize you're falling in love. i misspoke that the purpose of romance is to be romantic because ultimately love takes place in the viewer's mind and the writer sets the stage.

                but what it takes to fall in love is different for everyone. for example, tom hanks character is vulnerable and he's getting over his wife's death. we're falling in love alongside meg ryan. and when amy adams has to deal with exasperating matthew goode and their differences we're falling in love alongside her. it's the angle and the approach of the theme that i think determines how successful a story will be.

                i'm just talking (writing?) as a viewer. but i guess what i'm driving at is the feminist wrath in general is a mask. a particular story doesn't appeal to a particular subset for a particular reason. it isn't worth the aggravation of trying to figure out what that may be because it's different for everyone. i think it's much more productive to find a theme that's as universal as possible to cast the widest net, if that makes sense?

                so discussing love, actually. it's an exceptional film showing the various forms of love. tastes evolve over time. i had to grow to understand the appeal. i wasn't the target audience, until i was, then i got it, and now i love the story more for having viewed it. and that's my feminine interpretation of the feminist wrath in action, LOL.

                sorry if i'm a little off, i tend to think consistently in 3 dimensional inside/outside story headspace anymore, it drives me crazy.

                anyway, fun conversation.
                Last edited by asjah8; 01-31-2016, 10:15 PM.
                life happens
                despite a few cracked pots-
                and random sunlight

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Objectification of women

                  My favorite quote on feminism is a quote attributed to Rebecca West:

                  "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."

                  Perhaps the issue here is not with the film. Perhaps the issue here is with what "feminism" is.

                  I'm going with Rebecca West on this one.
                  GirlinGray

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Objectification of women

                    producer calling out sexist writing on twitter:

                    http://jezebel.com/a-chat-with-the-p...ion-1758327705

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Objectification of women

                      Originally posted by castilleja32 View Post
                      producer calling out sexist writing on twitter:

                      http://jezebel.com/a-chat-with-the-p...ion-1758327705
                      It's not sexist.

                      It's character descriptions pulled from amateur scripts. Even more seasoned writers went back to their old scripts to find similar examples.



                      Maybe he should start another account to track how many Oscar nominated screenplays describe their lead male as handsome.

                      RON WOODROOF, early 40's, handsome...

                      COLIN CLARK, 23, hurries across the lawn carrying a bag, he is casually dressed, boyish and handsome.

                      LUKE GLANTON; 28, handsome;
                      Last edited by Dustin Taylor; 02-12-2016, 12:16 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Objectification of women

                        Originally posted by Dustin Taylor View Post
                        It's not sexist.

                        It's character descriptions pulled from amateur scripts. Even more seasoned writers went back to their old scripts to find similar examples.
                        Is there some reason those can't be the same thing?

                        Something I've noticed about all the various -ists is that they're taken to be personal character evaluations even when they're clearly describing behavior and nothing else. You can do something sexist or racist by accident or because you don't know any better. And when something is obviously applied disproportionately to one gender, over and over again, especially in a way that contributes to other sexist issues, I don't see what's wrong with calling it sexist.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Objectification of women

                          Originally posted by Dustin Taylor View Post
                          It's not sexist.

                          It's character descriptions pulled from amateur scripts. Even more seasoned writers went back to their old scripts to find similar examples.

                          I once described a character... WILMA, 50s, a retired lot lizard whose wrinkled ass is saggin' beneath her cutoff Levis, ....

                          That's not pretty, yet a physical description... Is that sexist?
                          Well, I'd have to say that it's both, given that it's so obviously more than just a physical description.

                          It's not simply an objective description of someone, it's a physical description that's supposed to give us an impression about what kind of person this is -- in this case, an obviously negative impression.

                          I mean, "JAZZY, a dumb bit-t*ttied blonde" is also a physical description -- but it's also something else, something that it has in common with the description about.

                          It's a judgment about a character. Specifically, it's you, the writer, making a negative judgment about a character that you want the reader to bring to that character before they've even said or done anything.

                          This character is dumb, this character is a "lot lizard," this character is greedy, this character is "over-the-hill," or -- whatever it is.

                          Yes, in some sense it's a description, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that we're being objective when we're actually looking at a character from the outside and deciding that we're going to treat them as objects of fun or ridicule or as the "bad guys" of our story and start off as describing them as such.

                          NMS

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Objectification of women

                            Originally posted by Dustin Taylor View Post

                            Maybe he should start another account to track how many Oscar nominated screenplays describe their lead male as handsome.

                            RON WOODROOF, early 40's, handsome...

                            COLIN CLARK, 23, hurries across the lawn carrying a bag, he is casually dressed, boyish and handsome.

                            LUKE GLANTON; 28, handsome;

                            http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ike_women.html

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Objectification of women

                              Originally posted by Dustin Taylor View Post
                              It's not sexist.

                              It's character descriptions pulled from amateur scripts.
                              We all remember the time everyone agreed Donald Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" comments couldn't possibly have been racist, because he explained to us that he had not yet sold his first screenplay.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Objectification of women

                                Originally posted by Staircaseghost View Post
                                We all remember the time everyone agreed Donald Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" comments couldn't possibly have been racist, because he explained to us that he had not yet sold his first screenplay.
                                "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

                                What he actually said. And although he exaggerated the problem, and is a blowhard who doesn't think before he opens his mouth, there are areas of the US where this is absolutely true. Pretending it isn't, doesn't make the problem go away.
                                "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X