Home | About | Donate

Women Take On Hollywood


Women Take On Hollywood

Maria Giese

Last May, The New York Times published a 15-page letter from the ACLU to the EEOC and two California state agencies urging them to investigate Hollywood for sex discrimination against women directors.

Just months earlier, NY Times film critic Manohla Dargis wrote that our industry’s “refusal to hire more female directors is immoral, maybe illegal, and has helped create and sustain a representational ghetto for women.”


A picture tells 1000 words, and films are the equivalent of a direct injection into the collective consciousness.

That's why so many films show the mandatory female SERVICING the male, or otherwise set up plot lines where the independent female is murdered or raped. These images are a virtual constant in mass media.

And this is evidently why:

"Her article came on the heels of a USC study showing that only 1.9% of directors of the top-grossing 100 films of 2013 and 2014 were made by women. That means 98.1% of America’s top studio features are coming from the perspective of men."

Add in Anita Sarkeesian's experience of death threats for bringing attention to the now common imagery in video games where again, violence done to women is not only part of the plot-line; it's added to sexually excite young males. With this type of conditioning starting during adolescence, when adult sexuality is just in formative stages, violence will become coupled with sex in lots of young males' experiences.

... Just what the U.S. rape culture needs!

It's also appalling that there's a new genre of films where women star as the leading military assassins or skilled killers.

I'd like to see a political cartoon where the first frame has a young, attractive woman smoking a cigarette (as Edward Bernays utilized), and the second frame would have a sexy woman "smoking" someone with a giant gun of some sort. The caption for both would read: "You've come a long way, baby."

Dangerous, often destructive habits (ones that suit Mars and the warrior ethos) are being projected onto females as positive virtues and ways to demonstrate independence. In reality, these images subsume females into the martial web that Mars rules/patriarchy built. They also happen to be behaviors that are deadly to body and soul (of self or other).


I appreciate your pointing out that a female lead character portrayed as strong only because she's behaving like "one of the boys" isn't progress at all. Hopefully this investigation will open some eyes. So many still believe that gender inequality is a thing of the past.


Thank you for reinforcing this particular way that the image and likeness of "Mars rules" in the form of warriors standing in to "do a strict, angry father god's will" seeks to subsume other--that is, the intended Divine Complement and counterpart to all war, all the time--into himself.

Years ago I sought to publish an important concept in Ms. Magazine. I was struck by how much Ms. editors measured women's progress against mores, standards, conduct, and even recreational models designed, favored by, and apropos to males.

This incapacity to envision any reality (or reality construct) that stands outside of the prism (*and paradigm) that homage to the father god has built makes alternatives to the make-war state virtually impossible.

Too many women think they are obtaining freedom by turning themselves into sex objects. They measure freedom against an income that allows them to buy a nice car. Others enter the MIC and yesterday public radio had a discussion about women wanting to enter into combat.

Hearing that, the cartoon earlier mentioned came flashing through my thoughts.

It's a HUGE mistake when women embrace patriarchy's models, overall culture, and most traditional expressions. And when women who do this (and Hillary Clinton qualifies) while self-identifying as Feminists, I find this type of cooptation of any TRUE alternative to the patriarchal capitalist paradigm, damning, disgusting, disingenuous, and dangerous.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I looked up her birth date and she's a Gemini, same as the late Joan Rivers. Ms. Rivers used to upset me since she made a name for herself by using sexism against women as the basis for her humor. She loved "slut" jokes; and these, of course, reinforce ugly stereotypes about women and sexuality... on the part of women. I find that while Amy mocks herself a lot, she pushes the idea of the Barbie Doll "perfectly contoured" woman, and also denigrates herself (and other women) through the use of the type of sexist frames heard by males inside locker rooms.

It's no surprise that females willing to speak in patriarchy's misogynistic language get MUCH further than those who don't.

It's like females who identify with the make-war state find jobs as heads of state and so forth. Notice any peace activists there? The patriarchal-capitalistic paradigm mostly (if not only) rewards those who push messages, policies, and protocols resonant with its objectives.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.