The Holiday movie season is here! And, true to form, as revealed in USC's Annenberg School's most recent study of gender in the 100 top grossing films of 2009, we will blithely consume great movies that consistently marginalize and sexualize girls and women. The male to female ratio in film hasn't changed since 1946. In the upcoming round of seventeen "Must See" Holiday Movies for families recommended by Common Sense Media, only one has a female lead character: "Breaking Dawn."
The ratings system that we rely on to define what is "appropriate" for children and teens incorporates and perpetuates deep-seated sexist values that undermine efforts to create a genuinely equitable society. Why do we pay good money to expose boys and girls to films that make sexism not just acceptable but "appropriate?"
Say you are a parent choosing between two popular movies for a 14-year-old daughter and a female friend, like I was last summer. One movie is about a girl navigating -- with intelligence, poise and wit -- the treacherous, slut-shaming waters of high school. In the end, she finds a great guy to go to dinner with. The other is a classic American success story about a brilliant young man whose idea changes the world, and in which every woman but one is crazed, materialistic or half-naked eye candy. The first is "Easy A." The second, "The Social Network."
Both movies got Motion Picture Association of America ratings of PG-13. They were also both reviewed on a website created to provide trustworthy guidance about media and what's "appropriate" for young children and teens: Common Sense Media.
Common Sense recommends both movies equally as compelling stories for 14 and up, which is also the age standard for TV ratings. "The Social Network," despite "bad role models," is a "terrific story," which, although "better for older high-schoolers ... will appeal to media-savvy tweens and young teens." Their review of "Easy A" is limited to a plot review and a description of the movie as "smart but risqué."
One of the most helpful aspects of Common Sense Media is the ratings criteria that the site provides. Let's look at two key ratings used to gauge appropriateness for children: Sex and Consumerism. "Easy A" got a four out of five rating for sex. It had many references to sex, but no actual sex. It is a story about a girl dealing with the cultural crush of good girl/bad girl morality. Olive, the protagonist, is smart, funny, kind and independent. She is never naked and never has sex. "The Social Network" got three out of five. Although there is no explicit or graphic sex, it's constantly suggested. With the exception of the very first few minutes of "The Social Network" the image of girls, women and their sexuality is horrifying.
Common Sense says that "sexuality is a major theme" of that movie. But, that's wrong. Sex is a major theme. Sex and sexuality are not the same thing. Sexuality is a capacity for sexual feelings or an indication of a person's sexual preferences. Sex, on the other hand, is intercourse, or some variant of intercourse. It has as nothing to do with feelings, proclivities, orientation or desire.
"Easy A" got a HIGHER rating for sex than for "The Social Network," which suggests that "The Social Network" was more "appropriate" for pre-teens and teens. The movie that specifically mocks a slut-shaming double standard for boys and girls and that explicitly deals with thoughtfully considered issues of teen sexuality is less appropriate than the one in which girls and women are reduced to walking orifices who occasionally have to be fed.
Now, Consumerism. "Easy A" gets a two out of five rating for consumerism, because the female protagonist accepts gift cards from major brand name stores in exchange for enhancing the reputations of boys in her school by lying about having sex with them. The consumerism that Common Sense mentions takes place in the context of culturally understood "favors" that women "traditionally" do to gain money. In fact, no actual sex is exchanged for anything at all in this movie. "The Social Network," on the other hand gets a slightly higher three out of five, because "Obviously, the movie is a huge promo for Facebook ... and other brands are also featured."
It should have gotten a ten out of five. One of the movie's leitmotifs is consumption. The consumerism score fails entirely to note that the consumption happening is actually of women -- as rewards, as status symbols, as products and as prizes. According to the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in this movie, acquiring and consuming girls is the driving motivation for his sex-fueled, Facemash-creating late night frenzy.
"The Social Network" got a lot of flack for its treatment of women, none of which surfaced on Common Sense. But, the movie is the rule, not the exception. Its delivery was just a little blunter than most. And, its fictional misrepresentation of sex and women particularly telling. For example, the fact that in reality Mark Zuckerberg had a long-standing girlfriend was incompatible with the film's portrayal of him as someone on a glory-fueled quest for sex.
Of the movies on this year's "Must See" holiday hit list, almost all provide similar frameworks for understanding gender dynamics. Even -- most deceptively to children -- the animated ones. Think about how many movies you see where the woman, beautiful and sexy, is the source of the leading man's vulnerability and then, ultimately, his reward. Yes, some of the movies on the list, like "Hugo," avoid that trope, but given the overwhelming evidence in the Annenberg Study, not most. The rating system applied by Common Sense transmits values that promote entitlement and power in boys and subservience and sexual objectification in girls.
For parents genuinely seeking help in determining what "the third parent" teaches children, reviewing movies in this fashion is misleading, counterproductive and perpetuates outdated gender stereotypes. Common Sense Media has the right idea and is a good organization. It's just working with in a traditional framework that is hard to challenge. And, I believe that James Steyer, CEO and founder, who was interviewed for the documentary Miss Representation, genuinely wants to empower kids and parents to think critically about the world they live in. I would ask, as a parent and woman, that that idea be taken to its logical conclusions.
Among my top ten personal favorite movies are "Robocop," "Pulp Fiction" and anything in the "Matrix" series. However, as an adult, I am able to complement those with the occasional women-centric blockbusters like "Bridesmaids" and small, independent movies that win accolades at indie film festivals but don't get made and distributed in a worldwide, industrialized way because of the need in global entertainment marketing to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which turns out to be simple, violent, action films. Movies like "Juno," "Please Give" and other independent films feature women and their stories, as well as more dynamic and realistic representations of relationships between boys and girls, men and women. There are simply not enough of those choices for children and the choices we do have are sending pretty damning messages. Organizations like Geena Davis' See Jane and "Miss Representation" deserve your support if you think these issues are important.
This is not a plea for equal amounts of men and women in every film made. That's silly. It is an argument for recognizing both the value of balance in overall representation and for rating movies in a way that recognizes and deconstructs harmful gender bias as unacceptable and inappropriate. Can't we have a mainstream way of reviewing and rating for that?
Follow Soraya Chemaly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/schemaly
I have a 14-year-old daughter who is highly aware that outward appearance is valued more in women than smarts. And she does spend a great deal of time on the way she looks. But I'm thankful that she also understands achievement and goals are important, and she hangs out with kids who have similar values. I'm very proud that she opted to join her brother's robotics team this year, and has embraced her inner geek. She is one of maybe four girls on the team. Someone with less self-esteem probably would not have made that choice for fear of being labeled a nerd. Good for her.
Isn't that enough?
People point to Sex in the City as the ultimate in portrayals of empowered women. I see a bunch of spoiled brats who spend ghastly sums on designer shoes and handbags. With the possible exception of Miranda's character, the rest appear to be biding their time until they find a man.
What am I missing?
The women complaining want to be glorified and celebrated which on the surface is benign but when it rises to the level of trying to control everyone around you to make you happy it's negative. Women are not viewed negatively in general and the media has adequately reflected idealistic archetypes of modern women as powerful, intelligent, and in charge.
For a long time we lived with social movements that restructured society to address historic injustice and modify the mainstream culture to embrace equality. We accomplished that some time ago. What remains is the reality of who we actually are and distorting that to favor everyone's personal preferences of how they want to appear on film is impossible. You can't be made happy without censoring reality itself.
Maybe we should encourage more women to be "creators of those worlds." I doubt the resulting movies would be unpopular or unprofitable: women shell out the bucks for their families to see movies. We are powerful consumers...just waiting to spend $8 on something that is not complete junk.
Absolutely great post: as a former member of the Harvard Lampoon and perennial Faulkner fan, I loved the contrast between the two movies.
Women have NO female friends where they do interesting things that don't in some way revolve around a man. They only ever talk about men with their female friends. And women who do not centre their universe around men are hideous villians to be hated and defeated. Witches and monsters. What does all this say about the insecure psychology of the men behind these movies?
enabl
It's the one universally relatable drama in our lives. Women in particular love to watch the romantic drama between men and women. It's not sexism. The men's lives also revolve around getting women or their would be no man in the story for her want and eventually get. As a man I see these men as far too weak, subservient, and tolerant of the her whims but such men appeal to women's desire to be loved unconditionally.
The real world exists between the extremes of divorce proceedings and the monotony of a stable relationships. Sleeping around is too dull for drama. Being content and alone is best represented by a wise old person who has already lived a full life. Young people in that state are best represented prematurely embittered people who gave up on finding love.
Friends? Those are people you talk to your romantic problems with, everyone knows that. The rest of your life is of little concern nobody want to see you ordering around employees, designing a widget, calling suppliers for components, trying to make sales, or negotiating business deals.
Because loving someone unconditionally is only for the weak and subservient, right Eddie? Don't worry, it will never happen to you.
I think these ratings are really flavored by context and by the quality of the movie
You can deconstruct something to such an extent that it seems over-reaching, and I think this article would fit that description. Yes, there is sexism and gender bias in films, as well as in every aspect of society, but to answer the author's question about whether there is some mainstream method of rating movies with consideration to gender bias, I would say...no, because it's completely non-mainstream. Most parents just want movies to be rated on graphic sex/violence, not on feminist critique.
"Common Sense transmits values that promote entitlement and power in boys and subservience and sexual objectification in girls."
So what do you call it when a man in the movie who spends all his time trying to impress a women? I think the female sense of entitlement is more deeply entrenched, and every male heroine risking it all for the girl reinforces it. The active structuring of gender a new bias t make women appear superior is not equality. As a equal a girl can aid a boy or the reverse without further concern for whose on top because if it's two boys, two girls we should see the relationship just the same. Common sense is doing more to promote gender animosity in a culture where girls are already doing better than boys.
Now," Hey, you ugly_____________________________________, you'd be nothing without me and my girlfriend to insult you, now thank us!" is a pick up line.
I forgot girls still expect men to do the dirty work. Well so long as that is true men can do whatever they need to do in order to put up with these divas who feel entitled to having men come along to beg them for attention. I would like to see a movie about a unattractive women who goes around trying to romance attractive men who want nothing to do with her. We have seen plenty of guys doing that, I think the reverse would be enlightening.
Really gender differences in movies is based on men chasing girls. It's more interesting to watch some guy making a effort to get things rolling than watch some hot chick play princess in the castle. Girls try to look good to get attention then feminist complain women are being objectified. They don't care if some guy in a movie is repeatedly disrespected by the women around him, or get's shot down in ever more brutal ways. That's actually what we suppose to laugh at. If women get treated like that we feel bad for her. This is real gender bias, but men are so kind not to complain because they don't see themselves as victims even though by feminist standards it would not be hard to prove they are.
One must also consider that a woman who is a pursuer like I am is often seen as a threat to other women who wait for men to come to them. Socially, this is difficult as these women are the ones who will label the pursuer as a slut or attention starved or whatever. There's really no winning.
And to your last point: we tend to feel worse for a woman being shot down than a man because it is so rare that a woman is the pursuer and women are believed to be more sensitive to the sort of emotional blow that this provides. The truth being that rejection hurts for everyone; however, I think people—both men and women—need to learn that the sting of rejection shouldn't shy them away from pursuing what they want. If there were something in the media that got that point across, that'd be more valuable than anything that's currently being mass produced.
Boy (no pun), it is a miracle -- and a testament to women's strength and resilience -- that we've come such a long way, after all.
Imagine if men in movies were always shown to be less than intelligent, valued more for their physical appearance than their intelligence and humanity, I believe we would have a different view of men generally than we do. When men are portrayed in movies as being dim and beautiful, it is generally for comic effect but women are often shown that way and women are also usually in the background in movies which sends the message that women are not as important as men. And isn't that the way of things in real life?
If we want to change how women are perceived in reality, we have to change how they are portrayed in fantasy.
You've mentioned "Hugo," which, based on all the reviews I've read so far, seems to be a delightful movie, but so terribly predictable in gender terms. It features another boy protagonist, whose mother is non-existent (as usual, conveniently dead) and who does many wonderful things in his early life with help (and some typical hindrance) from men.
Yes, he has a female sidekick-friend, reinforcing the message for girls that they too can have interesting, adventurous lives if they pair up with an interesting boy (preferably with a long dead mother). Additional predictable symbolism suggests that a girl (Isabelle) is the conduit for the boy to solve the mystery and accomplish his life mission, further reaffirming the image of girls (and women) as playing supportive, to men, roles in life rather than being independent agents in pursuit of their own creative and other life agendas.
This is dispiriting, to say the least.
I heard an interview with Scorsese where he claimed that he made this movie in part at least for his youngest daughter. So it is ironic, too.
Movies with working class female characters are more convincing, but whatever truth they may serve is usually spoiled by the casting of a glamorous star (Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich, for example).
Indy films still may offer hope, but they are not as easily accessible and certainly don't have such an impact on our culture. Foreign crop is much better in this respect. My "golden standard" is the Dutch "Antonia's Line," which portrays good and strong women who create their own lot in life in spite of many relatable obstacles (although a touch of religious magic there does not hurt): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonia's_Line
BTW, I hated "Juno." It was oh-so-precious. A lead female character does not have to be insufferably quirky to be likable; on the contrary. Alas.
If I say I have a hard time finding a good steak, does that mean, in your eyes, that I don't like salad?
Yes, it is "people doing stuff." The problem is that it is mostly male people doing interesting and important stuff, while female people are there to support them at best.
All great works of art, literature, sculpture, painting, music, philosophy, math, science, invention; Every innovation, across every diverse culture no matter how secluded has come from man. Today, trillions upon trillions extra is spent on women in every area of education, employment, medically and socially, yet men still invent, create and innovate virtually everything. Women were never oppressed. Men and women are different, with different abilities.
Respectfully, you could not be more wrong.
Women have been artistic and innovative creators since the dawn of time. There is not enough lines in this comment thread to cover all you've missed in the history of civilization.
PS -- Every human being born in the history of time has came through a woman's body. Every. single. one.
A touch of humility would serve you well, sir.
Women and men were oppressed because nearly every civilization was a authoritarian government of one form or another. Free people are a fairly new idea. The revisionist history from feminist needs to be challenged to reflect accurately the realities of past times. Dishonest tropes like " the rule of thumb" are still tossed around like historic fact even though they are not. It was only famous as a example of judicial over reach that was widely condemned by the people of that time. That judge lost his position as a result of it.
Men are seen as powerful because they have to compete to get the attention of women where as women can attract mates just by showing up. That dynamic persists today as the most stable relic of old gender roles. The way this plays out in movies are women being targets of men's interest and thus in a way sex objects. That's the real world and if women really wanted to they would have changed it by now but are too attached to the privileged status.