Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Movie Mix

What Makes a Movie Sexist?

By Lisa Kansas, Punkass Blog. Posted May 22, 2008.


Is Iron Man sexist, or just an accurate reflection of sexism in our society?
Advertisement

I am feeling alone, humorless and strident -- often the fate of the feminist yeti, that oft-sighted, hairy-legged, man-hating creature of legend (tragic sigh).

I have now read lots and lots of reviews of Iron Man, and many of them appear to fall into one of two categories: (1) Not a sexist movie and (2) Not any more sexist than your average summer action movie.

I still don't agree, with either! But I thought I'd broaden my scope and comment on why I think that is in more general terms.

First, to narrow down what separates a sexist movie from a movie that is just accurately reflecting the sexist aspects of our culture:

Q1: Is an action movie that has a male lead rather than a female lead sexist?

A1: No. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women in the world, and the lead role in action movies is often portrayed by a cop, a pilot, a soldier, a government agent, a superhero -- in all cases except the superhero (cause we don't actually have any running around to the best of my knowledge) in the real world, those people much more commonly are men. In the case of the fictional superhero literary personae, most of them are male as well, especially the farther back in time you go.

Q2: Is an action movie that has a female co-lead who is not physically heroic sexist?

A2: No. Most co-lead female characters who are not physically heroic are doctors, scientists, journalists, actresses, businesswomen, waitresses, hairdressers -- in real life, people in these professions often are not also superior athletes and/or have martial arts or weapons training.

Q3: Is an action movie in which some female characters are portrayed as dumb materialistic sluts or sniveling cowards sexist?

A3: No. There are sufficient numbers of women out there who are dumb, materialistic and have sex with a lot of different men, and who are afraid of their own shadow and comfortable with openly displaying it.

Q4: Is an action movie where the female co-lead must ever be rescued by the male co-lead sexist?

A4: No. People rescue each other all the time (in varying degrees of course) and as far as I know there's no gender test you have to pass first to be the rescuer or the rescuee. I personally have sort of been rescued by men before, even.

Q5: Is an action movie where a female character has sex and/or a relationship and/or wants to have sex and/or a relationship with the male lead who treats her anywhere from indifferently to disrespectfully to abusively, sexist?

A5: No. Unfortunately this happens often enough in real life.

Q6: Is an action movie that treats all the secondary female characters in it as completely one-dimensional, sexist?

A6: No, since all the male secondary characters are usually also completely one-dimensional.

Q7: Is an action movie that takes place in a historical setting and has no female characters at all other than a few non-speaking or barely speaking parts sexist?

A7: Not if there really weren't any women around during that time frame performing events significant to the plot, no (for example, a movie taking place on an 18th century British naval vessel).

Well, then, if all those don't make a movie particularly sexist, more so than just the culture it's reflecting, then what does ... ?

1. Where the majority of female characters are portrayed as physically inept and the majority of male characters are portrayed as physically adept.

2. Where the majority of female characters are portrayed as dumb materialistic sluts or sniveling cowards.

3. Where the majority of actions taken by a female co-lead result in her botching them, having to be rescued from them or couldn't have been completed without the complete and utter guidance of the male co-lead.

4. Where the sex and/or relationship and/or desire for either from a female character with the male lead who treats her indifferently, disrespectfully or abusively is portrayed favorably or humorously.

5. Where all the secondary female characters are completely one-dimensional but some secondary male characters are not.

6. When an action movie takes place in modern America in a city, town or rural countryside and there are either no female characters or a few non-speaking or barely speaking parts.

Let's see ... let's rate Iron Man!

1. Nope. Pepper Potts was a complete klutz, but Tony Stark wasn't portrayed as all that physically adept either.

2. BINGO!

3. BINGO!

4. BINGO!

5. Nope. Everyone except Tony Stark was pretty one-dimensional; the person with the next most character development was Pepper Potts.

6. Nope.

So we have 3 out of 6 ... that's pretty high. The X-Men movies, for example, would score 0/6; the Fantastic Four movies would score 1/6; the Spiderman movies would score 1/6.

The feminist yeti rests her case!

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, media, sexism, movies, iron man


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't Hate The Player, Hate The Game
Posted by: Woeful on May 22, 2008 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm fairly certain that when Stan Lee created the Tony Stark character (circa 1963) he intended Stark to be sexist. Marvel has created an entire universe of characters with widely differing personalities to make that universe seem more real. Starks is sexist, this has never been hidden in the comic books, it's who Stark is. The movie can't change this, or it wouldn't be portraying Stark accurately.

The comic books really flesh out Stark's personality, and background. Tony Stark is not only sexist he's a full blown alcoholic who, at one point, is so far gone he needs to stop being Iron Man. These character defects are what make Marvel, and Iron Man so special. They reflect life... Every dark, dirty, horrible part.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really?
Posted by: Denmark on May 22, 2008 8:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please.

I believe you're giving Pepper way too little credit. When is she a klutz? While she wore ridiculously high heels, she never had a misstep, nor did she misspeak.

Perhaps you missed the climactic scene of combat where she activated the device that ended the baddie and rescued a disabled Tony? Talk about role-reversal, it's usually the damsel-in-distress who distracts the baddie while the hero saves the day. Leading up to that confrontation, Pepper stood up to Bad Iron Guy without blanching, deftly organized a government intervention, and even succeeded at industrial espionage under the very nose of our villain.

Also, where are the "majority" of women in the film? Aside from Pepper, I can only recall the reporter. You might complain about the lack of female speaking lines in the show, but I don't recall there being more than two female characters of consequence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally? Posted by: Lisa KS
» Weak article Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Weak article Posted by: Lisa KS
» RE: eally? Posted by: Livemike
I liked it.
Posted by: shannasmusic on May 23, 2008 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article to be very clear, and very fair. It actually made me stop to check on my own tendency toward feminist bias. I don't know that I could have approached this issue so rationally. Good job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, do no harm
Posted by: luckypuck on May 23, 2008 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, sit down, relax, breath deeply, intone OOOOOM.

Third, repeat to yourself a hundred times each:

It's only a movie

It's only fiction.

It doesn't necessarily reflect the values of the producers, directors, writers, actors, best boys/girls, key grips or foley operators

It's meant to be generally entertaining in some way.

It's NOT meant to be taken literally.

You can't please all the people all the time.

Fourth, do this same kind of analysis for chick flicks where most of the guys are assholes and all of the "good" guys can read the lead females' minds and respond appropriately and without being asked, to do and/or provide everything the lead women want.

Fifth, repeat steps 1, 2 3 and 4.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a shame...
Posted by: shannasmusic on May 23, 2008 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"it's only a movie..."

My young children try to say that when mommy objects to something harmful in a movie, video game, or on television. I tell them that when they grow up, they will have developed the capability to be able to discern that life is too intricately woven to ever consider that "it's only."

Nothing to do with human beings happens in a vacuum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More's the shame.
Posted by: luckypuck on May 23, 2008 10:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What’s “harmful” about a movie? It’s all make-believe. If they were my kids or grandkids (I have 3 kids and seven grandkids) I’d tell them it’s all stunt-people, CG, camera angles, cinemagic, whatever. That’s what I told mine. I used to tell them they can watch anything they want so long as I or my wife are in the room and they’re willing to listen to us spout off about the intense stuff. The response sometimes was either “aw, daddy,” or “never mind, we’ll turn it off.”

But other times, we used that stuff as a springboard to discuss whatever was happening onscreen. We had discussions about violence vs. non-violence, sex vs. abstinence, honesty vs. dishonesty, and on and on. Sure life is intricate (I could quibble about your “TOO intricately”--don't take life so seriously), but that’s what makes those teachable moments so valuable: You give them a piece of the intricacy, about a size they each can handle (age appropriate) so later, when they grow up, they’ll be better able put those pieces together and deal competently with that intricacy.

Not a one of my kids grew up to be a serial murderer and, though I sometimes wonder about the fiercesome four-year-old, I’m pretty sure none of my grandkids will either. Now, my kids do all this with their kids. You know, carrying on the tradition.

If, as in your case, in your over-protective mode, you take the easy way out and simply shield them from those intricacies, especially those “bad things” portrayed in film, TV, comics, books, etc., how are you preparing them for adulthood? How have they been given the necessaries to develop the capability and discernment of life’s intricacies? Film, TV, comics, books, etc., actually are a SAFE way to give them those tools BECAUSE those things are MAKE-BELIEVE.

True, nothing to do with real live humans happens in a vacuum in real life, but it does happen in the vacuum of fantasyland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

food for thought
Posted by: whealeydj on May 24, 2008 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really appreciated the criteria for sexist movie, I will try to keep in mind. tended to agree with Really? as it seemed to me Pepper Potts was a strong character and quite capable. I expect comic book and action/adventure movies to be sexist and adolescent male oriented. One problem when females are the superheroes like X-men and Fantasic 4 are the skin tight costumes which are also appealing to the adolescent and adult hetero males. Some watched Xena for the strong female, others watched it for the outfits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: food for thought Posted by: Livemike
Disagree
Posted by: megstar34 on May 24, 2008 7:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I completely disagree with your assessment of Iron Man as a sexist movie. Pepper actually figures out what is happening at Stark Inc and has the intelligence to tell the right people, she does not need to be rescued nor is she portrayed as stupid, in fact she is shown as handling a lot responsibility and calling Stark out when necessary.
The Vanity Fair journalist, while quick to jump in bed, also alerts Stark to the problems within his company. Both of these women demonstrate intelligence and will power, unlike many other action films.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent piece!
Posted by: Filmbrain on May 25, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was very happy to come across your piece, as it confirms what I thought about the film. See my (extremely) brief reaction to it:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong, wrong and wrong
Posted by: Cradalanius on Jun 3, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, points 2, 3 and 4 are not Bingos, as the author suggests. Let's look at all three women in this movie (Pepper Potts, the Vanity Fair reporter, and the Marine):

Point 2: The Vanity Fair reporter is quite the trollop, but that's only one character. None of the women is a coward, as evidenced by the reporter actively confronting the multi-billionaire head of a giant corporation (twice), Pepper keeping her head around Stane when she was hacking the computer system (not to mention shutting down a power plant despite being surrounded by walking arsenals!), and not the Marine who's...a Marine. Materialistic? Pepper gets herself a nice present becsue Tony's too negligent to buy her one. Not at all materialistic. So no majority of female characters in Point 2.

Point 3: not one woman botched a task she set her hand to, with the exception of the Marine, who got killed along with her entire platoon during the convoy. Pepper needed instruction on how to shut down the reactor, but for freak's sake! It's a reactor! ANYone would need help with that! (Same goes for Tony's heart-thingy rewiring.) Plus, out of all the female characters, she's the ONLY who needed guidance from a man (the man being a genius in Arc reactor technology, in fact who designed the reactor). No majority of female characters in Point 3 either.

Point 4: Sure, Tony was indifferent to Pepper and less than considerate of her for part of the movie. But this wasn't presented either humourously or favourably; rather, Pepper was presented in a sympathetic light. I personally have been down that road more times than I'd like. I related to her! Where we see rejection presented humourously and favourably is at the end of the movie, when Pepper shuts down Tony's romantic overtures! No majority in Point 4 either! (In fact, the OPPOSITE of the author's criteria is met!)

So it appears that what we have here, by the author's own definitions, is a completely non-sexist movie! One that was head and shoulders ABOVE X-Men or Fantastic Four in acting, writing and story, and which provided a valid commentary on military/industrial accountabilty to boot!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]