Objectification of women

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: Objectification of women

    Originally posted by Ronaldinho View Post
    That's usually a hint that maybe you shouldn't post.
    Dude, you're harshing my vibe.
    "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Objectification of women

      What an excellent and thoughtful thread! It makes my feminist heart sing.
      sigpic

      Website
      Tweets
      Book

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Objectification of women

        Originally posted by bmcthomas View Post
        I would also include Laura Linney and her brother, and Bill Nighy and his manager. But those just prove your point even further. Hmm....maybe the entire film is a subversive commentary on the genre.
        Right, I forgot about the artist / manager bromance. That one was kinda sweet.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Objectification of women

          Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post

          "John woos Mary" (objectifying Mary)

          "Mary rejects John" (objectifying John)
          Yes, indeed.

          Of any action, you can often find a reframe which changes the subject and object.

          Which is sort of the point - so often film writers don't.

          You would write a scene which was about John and what he was trying to do differently from a scene about Mary and what she was trying to do.

          If you're ONLY writing the scenes about John, that's the problem.

          And if you've got a multi-protagonist story about romance and somehow nearly all the points of view, almost all the characters driving the action, are the male characters ... that's exactly the problem that people have with Love, Actually.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Objectification of women

            And yet... it *actually* made 5X its budget

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Objectification of women

              Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
              Maybe some fun, but also to show the ridiculousness of going too far. You can't write a story where "John woos Mary" without some sort of reaction from Mary.

              Or "logically" you might have:

              "John woos Mary" (objectifying Mary)

              "Mary rejects John" (objectifying John)

              Just saying.
              I love this style of argument. I say "It's objectifying if you only can only describe the female character as the object of male action." And the response is "What if I make the female character the subject of action!?! There!!! Disproved you!!!"

              I'm wondering how much I need to spell this out for you.

              If Mary rejects John, she has AGENCY. She's making decisions for herself. She is not an OBJECT. You can be the object of another characters action, but if the character is ONLY (is there any way I can make this word larger?) the object of another character's action, then that character has no Agency and is being objectified.

              Once again, if the character is ONLY the object of another character's action throughout the entire script.

              That means they are ONLY the object.

              Once they are the subject of action, they are not ONLY the object.

              ONLY?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Objectification of women

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                I love this style of argument. I say "It's objectifying if you only can only describe the female character as the object of male action." And the response is "What if I make the female character the subject of action!?! There!!! Disproved you!!!"

                I'm wondering how much I need to spell this out for you.

                If Mary rejects John, she has AGENCY. She's making decisions for herself. She is not an OBJECT. You can be the object of another characters action, but if the character is ONLY (is there any way I can make this word larger?) the object of another character's action, then that character has no Agency and is being objectified.

                Once again, if the character is ONLY the object of another character's action throughout the entire script.

                That means they are ONLY the object.

                Once they are the subject of action, they are not ONLY the object.

                ONLY?
                sigpic

                Website
                Tweets
                Book

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Objectification of women

                  Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                  I love this style of argument. I say "It's objectifying if you only can only describe the female character as the object of male action." And the response is "What if I make the female character the subject of action!?! There!!! Disproved you!!!"

                  I'm wondering how much I need to spell this out for you.

                  If Mary rejects John, she has AGENCY. She's making decisions for herself. She is not an OBJECT. You can be the object of another characters action, but if the character is ONLY (is there any way I can make this word larger?) the object of another character's action, then that character has no Agency and is being objectified.

                  Once again, if the character is ONLY the object of another character's action throughout the entire script.

                  That means they are ONLY the object.

                  Once they are the subject of action, they are not ONLY the object.

                  ONLY?
                  Somebody made the asinine statement that "John woos Mary" is objectifying Mary. That wasn't me. I'm just trying to point out how idiotic that is. (Or what a crappy story it would be if "John woos Mary" and Mary has no reaction.)

                  Also near the beginning of this thread I pointed out that being too PC was a death spiral (to story creativity). If somebody is too afraid to write "John woos Mary", because in their mind that"objectifies" women -- that just proves my point.

                  I also said earlier, that I understood what was meant by "objectifying" women and that people should treat their characters with respect, (unless they're supposed to be despicable). Even mentioned that every script I've written, except one, has a woman lead.

                  So people can respond to what I wrote, or to what they want to think I wrote.

                  Not much I can do about that.
                  "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Objectification of women

                    Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
                    Somebody made the asinine statement that "John woos Mary" is objectifying Mary. That wasn't me. I'm just trying to point out how idiotic that is. (Or what a crappy story it would be if "John woos Mary" and Mary has no reaction.)

                    Also near the beginning of this thread I pointed out that being too PC was a death spiral (to story creativity). If somebody is too afraid to write "John woos Mary", because in their mind that"objectifies" women -- that just proves my point.

                    I also said earlier, that I understood what was meant by "objectifying" women and that people should treat their characters with respect, (unless they're supposed to be despicable). Even mentioned that every script I've written, except one, has a woman lead.

                    So people can respond to what I wrote, or to what they want to think I wrote.

                    Not much I can do about that.
                    Wait. "...people can respond to what I wrote, or to what they want to think I wrote." Is this just a best of internet style dodging the debate? I do always love the classics.

                    You seemed to latch onto "John woos Mary." I don't think anyone is debating that "woos" is the issue. We're all fine with characters wooing other characters. I love wooing. Woo until your heart's content.

                    The problem we're trying to discuss is that if being wooed is the only purpose for a woman in a script, that's objectification.

                    A better example might be "John rescues Mary." Again, John rescuing Mary is not a problem as long as there is something more to Mary than just a damsel in distress, but if Mary only exists in the script to be rescued by John, that's the issue.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Objectification of women

                      Forgetting the notion of being "PC" - god, could I hate that term more? - the brutal truth of these simple, uncomplicated tropes (of John wooing/rescuing/fixing Mary, who has no agency in her story, for example) is that they're BORING. We have literally generations of films, thousands, tens of thousands even?, examples of this story. Boring, flat, objectified women ARE EVERYWHERE.

                      No need to be "afraid" of writing a tired old trope like this because of political fallout - be afraid of boring the crap out of people.
                      sigpic

                      Website
                      Tweets
                      Book

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Objectification of women

                        I think you have an oppportunity to pay attention that there’s something in your writing that may be hostile to or demeaning of women. “Objectification of women” can be a code term for misogynistic attitudes either in the story or subtext.

                        Portrayals of women shouldn’t be discussed as equivalent to bias in portraying minorities, the disabled, etc. Women aren’t a “minority.” We’re talking about half of all people -- half of your potential audience.

                        I also don’t agree that you should shrug it off, along the lines of don’t worry if some people find your work offensive. Yes, sometimes you need to be provoking or transgressive or take risks if you have a strong vision for your story or characters. But demeaning women with tired old tropes that use them as props or minor characters, or brutalize them according to stereotypes of the genre, is not only hostile to women but it IS boring.

                        Maybe you’re being put on notice that there’s a current in your work that needs more awareness or development when it comes to your women characters or how they’re part of your stories.

                        There’s a lot more awareness and discussion now of how women are portrayed in leading roles in films as well as hiring practices.

                        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/ma...-out.html?_r=0

                        http://shitpeoplesaytowomendirectors...ot-be-offended

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Objectification of women

                          Originally posted by nic.h View Post
                          Forgetting the notion of being "PC" - god, could I hate that term more?
                          I really should stop responding to this thread... but I love my guilty pleasures.

                          More often than not, it seems to me that the people who hate the term PC are the people who want to go on calling other people by the derogatory terms they've used their whole life. "I can't call them midgets! Damn this political correctness."

                          It's tough. I remember the first time someone jumped on my case about using the word "retarded." I got super defensive. "I'm not calling a person retarded!" "It's an actual term!" But they were right, and I was wrong. The word itself has an enormous amount of weight for the people it has been used as a slur against or against the people they love.

                          Yes, there are people who take the cause too far. That jump on people for using the wrong pronoun or just not being aware of the current accepted term. Like you said earlier, there are people who wake up in the morning dying to be outraged.

                          But we shouldn't throw out the goal of being PC because of bad apples. At it's core, political correctness is about trying to be inclusive. Make it so we're not excluding people through language. It's a touchy subject for us because we make our living in language, so we don't like the idea of it being "policed." But opening the door and making everyone feel welcome is only going to improve the overall quality of what we do.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Objectification of women

                            Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                            Wait. "...people can respond to what I wrote, or to what they want to think I wrote." Is this just a best of internet style dodging the debate? I do always love the classics.

                            You seemed to latch onto "John woos Mary." I don't think anyone is debating that "woos" is the issue. We're all fine with characters wooing other characters. I love wooing. Woo until your heart's content.

                            The problem we're trying to discuss is that if being wooed is the only purpose for a woman in a script, that's objectification.

                            A better example might be "John rescues Mary." Again, John rescuing Mary is not a problem as long as there is something more to Mary than just a damsel in distress, but if Mary only exists in the script to be rescued by John, that's the issue.
                            I thought I made it pretty clear (a few times) that "John woos Mary", with no response from Mary, would be stupid and boring. I actually used the word bored or boring (to lazy to figure which right now), at least of couple of times. So it sounds like you're saying the same thing I'm saying. Kind of what I meant by "...people can respond to what I wrote, or to what they want to think I wrote."

                            But, whatever -- now that we figured out we're on the same page, there's not really any point in going on with this, is there?

                            Is that fair enough?
                            "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Objectification of women

                              Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                              More often than not, it seems to me that the people who hate the term PC are the people who want to go on calling other people by the derogatory terms they've used their whole life. "I can't call them midgets! Damn this political correctness."
                              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."
                              "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Objectification of women

                                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                                I really should stop responding to this thread... but I love my guilty pleasures.

                                More often than not, it seems to me that the people who hate the term PC are the people who want to go on calling other people by the derogatory terms they've used their whole life. "I can't call them midgets! Damn this political correctness."

                                It's tough. I remember the first time someone jumped on my case about using the word "retarded." I got super defensive. "I'm not calling a person retarded!" "It's an actual term!" But they were right, and I was wrong. The word itself has an enormous amount of weight for the people it has been used as a slur against or against the people they love.

                                Yes, there are people who take the cause too far. That jump on people for using the wrong pronoun or just not being aware of the current accepted term. Like you said earlier, there are people who wake up in the morning dying to be outraged.

                                But we shouldn't throw out the goal of being PC because of bad apples. At it's core, political correctness is about trying to be inclusive. Make it so we're not excluding people through language. It's a touchy subject for us because we make our living in language, so we don't like the idea of it being "policed." But opening the door and making everyone feel welcome is only going to improve the overall quality of what we do.
                                I hate the term "PC" because it suggests that people are doing it because they don't want to be seen to do the wrong thing, or say the wrong thing, when I see it as common decency. That is, treating people as humans and not objects of ridicule. It's not political. It's humane. "PC", the term, is used now as a pejorative even though we need its substance more than ever.

                                So you've misunderstood me. It's the term I hate, because of how it's been manipulated - not by people who adhere to it, but by people who don't - not the idea.
                                sigpic

                                Website
                                Tweets
                                Book

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X