AWFJ Women On Film - The Week In Women, June 12, 2009 - MaryAnn Johanson
Men, bless their blindered little hearts, really, really don’t get it, but at least cable TV loves strong women.
MEN JUST DON’T GET IT. It’s been a very dispiriting week for me as I’ve been searching the Web for news of women in the entertainment industry. Everywhere I turned, it seemed, was evidence not just of the lack of opportunities for women to do anything beyond the narrowest stereotypes of what women should be and what women should want, but also of the great and deep disdain in which many men hold women.
For example, there was the post at Cinematical, by Peter Martin, the provocative title of which — “Jessica Biel: Stripper or Serious Actress?” — belied the fairly intelligent discussion following, that covered both the perfectly normal male desire to look at attractive women and the dilemmas that female actors who want to work but also want to be taken seriously face in today’s entertainment environment. “To strip, or not to strip?” could have been an alternate title for the post.
But the comments following it prove that a gal just cannot win, no matter what she does. She’s either delusional for believing herself “hot enough” to get naked on camera or not fit to complain about being exploited because she colluded in her own exploitation or not talented enough to be worthy of any role other than one that gets her naked.
Then there was Adam Eisenberg, who blogs at OutOfTheBlu, who said this about actreess Megan Fox (Transformers):
I’m not a stalker and I’m not violent.
But ever since I saw Megan Fox, I’ve wanted to hunt her down and club her like a cavewoman.
Let me clarify.
I don’t really want to club her like a cavewoman…that sounds misogynistic and weird. What I mean is I want to club her like a caveman who bonked sexy cavewomen over the head and dragged them by the hair back to their caves.
Seriously, where the f*** does she get off looking like that?
See, it’s cute and funny cuz Eisenberg isn’t really a pig — he just plays one on the Internet. And anyway, it’s all Fox’s fault because she’s so damn hot. If she’d wear a burqa or something, perfectly ordinary normal guys like Eisenberg wouldn’t be tempted to behave like a caveman.
But all that was nothing compared to the post by Jeffrey Wells — supposedly a respected observer of the Hollywood scene — who devoted an entire post, entitled “Just Hot Enough,” to the letter-grading system he uses to reduce women to how pleasing they will be to him:
Life has taught most of us that the best women to be with in a relationship are B-plusses, Bs, B-minuses and C-plusses. I’m not saying you can’t be perfectly happy with a triple-A or a double-A — I’m saying that happiness odds increase when you drop down into the B and high-C categories. Every now and then you’ll get lucky and meet a lovely, spiritually attractive, good-for-the-soul A-minus woman, but the odds don’t favor it.
By the “us” that Wells suggests life has taught this lesson to, he doesn’t really mean all of us: he means men with the same dehumanizing and reductive approach to women.
It gets much, much worse from there. The best (ie, the most horrific) part:
Life would be heavenly and rhapsodic if women had the personality and temperament of dogs — forever loyal, non-judgmental, constantly affectionate. But that’s a loser’s dream.
(Blogger hortense at Jezebel offers an excellent takedown of Wells.)
The commenters on Wells’s post are well worth reading, too, because they’re a perfect example of something I’ve encountered quite a bit later, and that I’ve finally come to understand informs the attitudes of many men who don’t understand what feminism is all about. For those who defend Wells in their comments, it comes down to a simplistic either/or: either people of both genders prefer their romantic/sexual partners to be attractive, or they don’t… and therefore (these guys believe they’ve triumphed at this point), since everyone knows that everyone really would prefer to be with someone attractive, feminists, who are probably lesbians anyway, don’t have a damn hairy leg to stand on when they bitch about something like what Wells wrote.
I’m gonna ignore the misogyny inherent here and give all these men — Wells included — the benefit of the doubt. They say such things as these, and are as genuinely surprised to hear anyone disagree with them as they are, because they really do believe that the whole world sees everything exactly the same way they do. Because the world has, for so long, given the stamp of approval on the white, Western, middle-class-and-up male perspective, they honestly cannot see that theirs is not the only way of seeing things. Try to explain to them, as one feminist does in her pushback to Wells, that not everyone has the same understanding of what constitutes “attractive,” and they literally cannot hear that, because it makes no sense to them. (Or try to explain to them, for instance, that a female Latina Supreme Court justice ruling from her experience is no more biased than a white male WASP Supreme Court justice ruling from his experience, and the blinders they’re wearing completely cloud their appreciation of this fact.)
I’ve been facing the same thing with some male commenters to my review of My Life in Ruins. I complained that the movie suggests that all the many things that bother the Nia Vardalos protagonist — which have to do with job dissatisfaction and the fact that so many people fail to appreciate the art and history and loveliness of Greece in the same way she does — are instantly dissipated when she gets laid by an attractive man, and will no longer bother her now that the prospect of an ongoing relationship with that attractive man is before her. Which is nonsense.
The interpretation of this complaint by some men has been that I’m the one who’s being unrealistic, because of course almost everyone wants to have a nice romantic relationship. And after much virtual banging of my head, attempting to explain that I do not dispute that fact, I suddenly realized: Most men have never, ever encountered the attitude that the only fulfillment they should expect to get out of life — that they will need to get out of life — will come from taking care of a woman. That’s not to say that no one ever bugs men about getting married. Of course that happens. But there is a basic assumption that, sure, a man might be missing something if he’s not married, but a man has lots of other avenues for self-fulfillment, so it’s hardly the end of the world. But the basic assumption for women is that she wouldn’t even be worrying her pretty little head about such nonsense as politics or career or pollutants in the water if she were properly distracted by a man.
So when women complain about how we face this attitude all the damn time — especially in our pop culture! — and we’re tired of it, some men can dismiss this as patent nonsense because they sincerely don’t see it.
I’m hardly breaking any philosophical ground here: this is standard stuff, Feminism 101. But for some reason, although I understood this already, it’s been clicking with me in a much more resonant way lately.
GUESS WHO BLOGS ABOUT MOVIES TOO? I thought I’d found an interesting new film blog this week, Medfly Quarantine… and then I stumbled across this post, by Ryan Kelly, “Notes on the Blogaissance.” He lists some of the “great many lessons to be learned from the blogosphere,” ones that he “most value[s].” Way down on the list is this:
Girls blog about movies, too.
Now, Kelly is only 20 years old, but I might have thought that would mean he was more open to the idea that girls, you know, do think about stuff, and write about it. Surely, it could only have come as a surprise to him that “girls blog about movies too” if he’d previously believed that we didn’t, for some bizarre reason. Why on Earth would anyone hold the default position that women do not write about film?
I might have thought that at my advanced age — twice Kelly’s — I would be immune to this, but I was absolutely crushed to come across this entry on his list. It said to me that everything I’d laughed about in recognition higher up on his list (“Saying you like Mission to Mars will still get you into trouble”) he meant to apply only to boy, the default film bloggers. I haven’t felt so… dismissed and invisible in ages.
CABLE LOVES WOMEN, AT LEAST. Holly Hunter talks to Marshall Fine at Hollywood & Fine about her show Saving Grace, about to return to the cablewaves:
For Hunter, “Saving Grace” represents a kind of security she’s rarely had in her career. Despite an early Oscar nomination for “Broadcast News” and a subsequent win for “The Piano,” Hunter has always scrambled for work.
“I’ve always been offered stuff, but my career has never been as giant as all that,” says Hunter, 51. “I’ve moved laterally, as opposed to vertically. I was never a superstar. I’ve always had to move between a couple of years of unemployment, where offers are not provocative enough to take, and seasons where I work nonstop for a year. It’s always been an erratic rhythm. I’ve always enjoyed my time off. I’ve never liked working as much as I work now. I do get a hiatus but I’d like a little more.”
“So many means of expression are being explored in TV through women who are fully mature, in the prime of their lives, feeling experienced and able to express who they are. We’re not 21. It’s really exciting, in that these opportunities are kind of unprecedented. Glenn Close, Kyra Sedgwick, Mary McCormick, Mary Louise Parker, a show like ‘United States of Tara’ – women are exploring all kinds of new aspects of themselves.”
HOLLYWOOD HATES WOMEN, PART 32,954. Surely My Big Fat Greek Wedding alone makes Nia Vardalos one of the most successful women in Hollywood history by the only standard the industry cares about: money. But even she can’t get a movie greenlit. Why? As she writes at Huffington Post:
A little-known fact: some studios recently decided to no longer make female-lead movies.
Lately, I’ve been in meetings regarding a new script idea I have. A studio executive asked me to change the female lead to a male, because… “women don’t go to movies.”
Really?
When I pointed out the box office successes of Sex and The City, Mamma Mia, and Obsessed, he called them “flukes.” He said “don’t quote me on this.” So, I’m telling everybody.
And we’re hearing it.
OPENING THIS WEEK. The Taking of Pelham 123? Cool, fun, exciting movie. No female characters to speak of. Imagine That? A tedious sitcom, starring a seven-year-old girl and featuring, in one or two scenes, the nagging ex-wife. It’s pretty much all Eddie Murphy and Thomas Haden Church measuring their dicks against each other’s for 90 minutes. Moon? Spectacular low-budget science fiction indie. It’s all Sam Rockwell. Whom I worship. But it could have easily been Cate Blanchett.
Reply Reply to all Forward
sarcasm is lost on ya huh?
you’re more concerned with my jokes about the idiot (yet extremely hot) actress megan fox, than her desires to prejudge and kill red-staters (both men AND women)?
has ms. fox ever mentioned burqas or honor killings? no. she’s a typical fake liberal moron who thinks people from nebraska are what’s wrong with the world.
look, it’s possible that you didn’t notice my constant attacks on FGM, burqas, and muslim (and other) oppression of women, just as it’s possible that i missed your destruction of letterman’s perverted, distasteful, misogynistic comments towards palin, so let’s call it even…with you getting a slight penalty for totally not understanding my post.
you aren’t one of those feminists that hates sarah ‘i’m the definition of a feminist’ palin are you?
regards and thanks for the linkage,
adam
June 12th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
by the way…please don’t judge me based on your preconceptions and stereotypes of my skin color, my socio-economic status, my ethnicity, my whereabouts, or my religion.
it’s unbecoming to read your opinions of men and see so many, ‘theys’ and ‘thems.’
we’re all different ya know and it’s kinda rude to blanket people into groups that fit your agenda.
thanks!
June 12th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I didn’t judge all men, Adam, just you.
I understood your post perfectly well: Even though you think Megan Fox is a moron, you still want to fuck her.
We know where you stand.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Women don’t go to movies? Has this guy ever been in a movie theater?
June 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Regarding Sarah Palin.
Just because a person is a woman, doesn’t mean that feminists have to like them. For me, feminism isn’t about “Women are cool no matter what they do!” It is about fighting for gender equity. There are women who work against that…and so I see no need to support them just because they are women. Sarah Palin’s politics do not help gender equity…well…they don’t support equity on a lot of counts…so I see no need to support her.
That said, just because I don’t support Sarah Palin, doesn’t mean that I think it is okay to say sexist things about her. Most of the feminist blogs I read are very unhappy when people attack her in misogynistic and sexist ways…or when they praise her in misogynistic and sexist ways. For example, I saw a number of male “supporters” reducing her to purely a sex object…the whole VPILF. What’s up with that? That’s jacked up. You don’t have to like her politics, but show the woman some respect…and that was coming from the right, not the left.
As for grouping people into blanket groups. Society groups people into blanket groups and then rewards some of those groups with privilege and other with oppression. Sure any individual man, will have individual stories. And each man will have overlapping circles of privilege and oppression. Some men experience class oppression, other regional oppression, others racial oppression…but all men also experience male privilege. A poor immigrant non-citizen gay black man will have a bunch of disadvantages that a mid twenties hegemonically attractive very wealthy white woman won’t have. But that black man will still have male privilege.
Privileges are about systemic power…it isn’t about an individual. It doesn’t make you a jerk. It is just how our society works right now. I’m a guy…and I have a complicated individual life…but at the end of the day, I don’t have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped. I have much better odds of getting tenure than my female colleagues. I am taken more seriously by my students. The chances are slim that I’m going to be beaten and killed by my girlfriend. There are any number of ways in which male privilege affects me. I just have to be aware of it and try to be a good force.
For example, I don’t make sarcastic jokes about raping Megan Fox–you know bonking her on the head, dragging her off, and have sex with her regardless of her consent–because I don’t want to contribute to the stereotype that all men are knuckledragging assholes or contribute to the culture of rape in this country.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Oh…Adam, since you seem not to be aware of quite a bit of feminist critique of anti-Palin sexism, here is a link with more information for you.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016007.html
June 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
How refreshing and honest.
Well said M-A.
merci
June 12th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Shorter adam: Hey! I did something dickish, but it’s OK, because Megan Fox did something dickish, and yet I’ve forgiven her by wanting to fuck her. Because two wrongs totally make a right.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:08 am
See what I said about blinders, Paul. It doesn’t matter whether these guys go to the movies (which they don’t, of course — they half-see movies in screening rooms while texting through half the film). They “know” that women don’t go to the movies, and that’s that.
But that’s how some men misinterpret feminism, t6. Feminism means, in part, judging a woman as a person, on the basis of her actions and her words, and not in an automatic way on the basis of her sexual organs. Knee-jerk support for a woman merely because she’s a woman is just as preposterous as knee-jerk dismissal of a woman for the same reason.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:19 am
i’m feeling a bit judged maryann, but if you’re being honest, and you only judge me and no other men, i’ll take that deal.
however, i was born this way and who are you to judge me?
wow this place needs some tissues.
stat.
also, i’m wondering how you ‘ladies’ feel about fox’s comments, which i included in my piece…”Olivia Wilde is so sexy, she makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands.”
ew. i mean, notwithstanding the violent misogynistic nature of her comments (even if she didn’t include the need for a weapon), does megan know olivia’s iq and personality or does she just want to ‘fuck her’ because she’s hot.
let me guess. she learned that from our ‘male dominated culture.’
sheesh.
what a throwback retrograde idiot she is!
i’ll keep my eyes peeled for that write-up and the one that goes after fox for her racist, xenophobic, intolerant, genocidal comments towards middle-americans.
and btw, yes.
i’m totally offended that ‘white’ trash is regularly used and is race specific.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:11 am
der bruno:
i flatly reject your sexist assertion that misbehavior and distasteful comments can rightfully be described as ‘dickish.’
please try again with a more gender-neutral term.
thanks!
June 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Adam, you should be offended by the term white trash. It is an offensive term. It is classist and racist. Though probably not racist like you imagine. The reason white must be specified is because other races are assumed to be trash…thus needing no specific adjective. It is the same how the term Lady Doctor, through the specification of Lady, normalizes the role of doctor to men.
Megan Fox has made a number of really unfortunate comments. The ones you have published are not nearly all of them. She says biphobic things…it is just unfortunate. She seems really to be struggling with sexism against her on one hand, and a whole mess of internalized sexism she’s got on the other. She’s a bit of a mess.
But we aren’t talking about her…none of your deflections “but she said!” changes what you wrote. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
If you really wanted to critique Megan Fox you could have done it professionally and thoughtfully, that would have made your column something that people might have taken something really positive away from. It might have made people think about her and what’s up. There is a very important column to write about Megan Fox…and instead of writing about it, you wrote how you think she sucks but you’d still rape her. Then when people call you on it, you complain that no one is talking about Megan Fox. Well people are talking about Megan Fox (I’ve read articles calling her to task on a number of topics). And you had a change to talk about Megan Fox in a way that could have really done some good for society. And you pissed it all away by acting like a 13 year old.
June 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Oh, also, Adam. Don’t assume everyone reading this column is female.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Who are you to judge Megan Fox? She was born that way!
No, seriously, MJ is “judging” with basis on what you wrote. And her “judging” apears to be simply stating her own thoughts on the subject, and refuting what she disagrees with you. You can do the same to her without being trollish or playing victim…
June 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
When Mamma Mia came out last summer, I saw it opening night. (Our local movie theater had chosen the movie for a special promotion. The promotion went on to win 2nd in Canada in the Show Canada competition.)
I was so afraid that it wouldn’t stay long, and I enjoyed it so much, I took all my 9 of my staff, friends and any other woman I could drag to it on the following Thursday as a much needed break from work. We took the afternoon off and went and say the movie. I wanted to make sure these women were able to see such a positive, powerful and fun movie before it left town. (We all work in the social services field.)
When I made the comment to our local theater manager that I wasn’t sure how long it was staying, he told me “it’s not going anywhere”. Turned out it was selling out every night, so he was able to keep it. In fact it stayed at our theater longer than “The Dark Knight”!
I’ve also seen “My Life In Ruins” but I had to go to the city to see it, it wasn’t coming to our small city.
I asked our Theater Manager if the target demographic for movies was males 13-30 because that’s who goes to movies, or is it that males 13-30 go to movies because the movies are targeted at them? There was no answer.
Sexist remarks are sexist because they reduce a woman to limited and stereotypical attributes, regardless of who says them: a man or a woman.
I’m truly alarmed at the toxicity of the remarks directed at women based solely on their physical appearance.
I have a daughter, and it’s attitudes like this that make her feel unsafe out in the world.
Grow-up and stop pandering to the mass media’s demand that women keep to a stereotype, and are just here to entertain your personal fantasy.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
But adam doesn’t want to “critique” Megan Fox, t6. We already know this. He wants to he fuck her. Regardless of whatever else he may think of her, this is his primary reaction to her.
What’s really the problem with this kind of attitude isn’t whatever Fox said (though I’m certainly not going to defend it), it’s that what she said has absolutely no bearing on anything adam might already be thinking about her. Whoever Fox is as a thinking (or nonthinking) person is completely irrelevant to anything beyond adam’s sexual desire for her, which is completely independent of everything except what she looks like.
Feminism means women should be allowed to do and say whatever they want (within the same caveats that we should dictate to men: such as, “as long as no one is hurt by those words or actions”). That doesn’t mean that feminism means that women, for instance, must automatically applaud anything a woman does or says. But it does mean that we should be women no matter what they say or do, and indeed, that’s why you see feminists push back against somelike like Sarah Palin, who is, arguably, hurting people (women *and* men!) with her words and actions. It also means it’s totally right for people to argue about whether what Megan Fox said hurts people. But it doesn’t mean we tell them what they MUST do or say — or what they must NOT do or say — simply because they’re women. Feminism means we don’t reduce women to their bodies and ignore their brains and their personalities and *their* wishes and desires.
I want to be clear about this. I’m not picking only on adam, because he’s certainly not the first man to say something like his comment that I singled out. That comment happened to cross my radar this week, but it’s hardly unique. (Sorry, adam: you’re ordinary.) I’m highlighting this repulsive attitude, which still holds great sway today: that a woman is absolutely good for nothing except what responses she elicits sexually from men. And even if she’s really really AWFUL as a person, that’s okay too, as long as she’s hot.
You might consider, adam, that the only reason at all that Megan Fox had the public soapbox to say such a thing as she said is because she is considered “hot.” If talent and brains and other nonphysical qualities were important factors for someone being pushed by Hollywood as the latest star, maybe she would never have been in a position to say what she said at all.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I dunno what I was trying to get at with this:
But it does mean that we should be women no matter what they say or do
which makes no sense. So consider it deleted.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
feminism has been lost on these feminists (males and females).
meanwhile, megan fox continues to deliver for me in droves.
her latest comment that, ‘women/girls are catty’ wouldn’t be so well received had a man said it…
right?
right.
how about when she said she’d only date another woman if that woman was a virgin to the penis?
take her three notable comments into consideration and she’s a damned misogynist of the first order! lol
this is relevant not in a ‘but she said it first’ way, but because it proves these transgressions are exhibited by both genders and are part of the human condition, yet you blame it all on testosterone.
you guys are so judgmental towards men and you really need to get over yourselves.
it was a joke. i am a ‘middle-american’ and if megan wants to view me as a throwback caveman, i’ll treat her idiotic ass like one on my obscure blog. see, i’ve evaluated her intellect independent of her physicality! and you’re right…i still totally wanna hit that! OMG! how primal of me!? ew!
so thanks for telling my why she’s a hollywood starlet.
so what? jealous much? as the kids say, “HATER!”
maybe you should help attractive women reject offers that are solely based on their looks. that shouldn’t be too hard.
while you’re at it, help them view big-bellied, balding, hirsute men for something other than their profitability, i mean they’re people too.
fact is, i run a website largely based on satire and yellow journalism. if you think that’s juvenile, it is and you should join me in the real world.
87% of the population would “fuck” (so crude!) megan fox regardless of her intellect, and i’m not sure why that’s bad or how you’re ever going to change it…and my main point holds true that i am an advocate for women’s rights and frequently berate their oppressors on my site, but that doesn’t jive with your paranoid broad strokes.
megan has diminished herself, not all womankind.
but apparently, i have diminished myself AND all mankind.
we know her because of her looks, and when her ‘insides’ are found to be detestable, what shall we do?!
force ourselves to find her, ugly?
ok…i’ll consider a post about her complexion and her toe-thumbs since my readers know exactly why i disagree with her viewpoints. this isn’t real life where people’s relative attractiveness actually changes based on their personality. it’s hollywood/media and they will be judged on their appearances. period.
and maryann, you appear to have some serious issues with rejection and anger. whether you’re beautiful and unable to be taken seriously, or hideous but immensely talented (at something other than writing or thinking), i have a feeling your personality is really to blame for your loneliness.
hopefully that makes you feel a bit better to know that people are taking it all in when they consider you.
i do wish you well in your pursuits of ‘transforming’ humankind into blindfolded “Lady Justice” types (unless they’re wise latinas who peek at the identities of their litigants).
maybe try internet dating/chat rooms?
adam
June 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Hey Adam…what do YOU look like? Can we see an image of you, then from there, make judgements about your personality/soul/thoughts based on your appearance?
Maybe you’re ugly, dude. Maybe that’s why you have rape fantasies, since a handsome man would be getting enough consenual sex to satisfy his libido. Owww, was that mean? Did I hurt your feelings? Sorry, so sorry dude.
In your last post it sounded like it was OK to club and fuck Megan Fox because she says stupid things…well, gosh, has anyone assaulted you yet?
Seriously, look up the word “feminist” in a dictionary or consult your local college professor. I know it’s really exhausting, coming to understand the true meaning of a word (and maybe employing a little empathy for 50 percent of the population), but hey, it’s worth it in the grander scheme of things. Who knows, maybe you’ll get laid more.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I was just kidding— most of my very favorite bloggers are girls: The Siren, Miranda Wilding, Sheilla O’Malley. T’was a joke. If I thought it would hurt anyone’s feelings I wouldn’t have included it.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Not to mention, the fact that you could accuse me of sexism in the same post that begins with the statement “Men, bless their blindered little hearts, really, really don’t get it”, has me absolutely howling.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Ryan - Even though you didn’t mention me as one of your favorite bloggers, I am coming to your defense. I thought your comment about girls blogging, too, was a hoot and definitely a compliment. I’m sorry you got caught in the shrapnel of this commenters anger (not misplaced for the most part, I might add).
June 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I’m rarely late to the party.
Unless I want to make the classic actors’ entrance.
Christ, that red is hard on the eyes…
June 20th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Let me first say that I’m thrilled to post my comment after the truly magnificent Marilyn Ferdinand (of FERDY ON FILMS).
Like me, she’s a committed feminist (who adores men). No holds barred. Takes no prisoners. Doesn’t suffer fools gladly…and she’s one hell of an amazing writer on top of all that.
Ms. Johanson, you make a lot of valid points that I do not disagree with.
AT ALL.
But I fear you lost me when you took Ryan Kelly (of the utterly fabulous MEDFLY QUARANTINE) to task.
Yes, Ryan is only 20. But he has wisdom and great sensitivity far beyond his years. He not only visits my site CINEMATIC PASSIONS on a regular basis, but he’s a very good friend of mine.
From the beginning, I wanted my site to express my progressive attitudes about feminism along with the principles that are precious to me. I feel that it has succeeded in that regard.
I don’t think that my love of old Hollywood glamour runs counter to that. (That was the era, after all, where female actors had wickedly powerful leading roles and were able to go to the wall with them.) As long as no one is exploited, I’m good with it.
Certainly there are men that are complete idiots whose attitudes towards women are sad at best and reprehensible at worst. But Ryan CAN NOT be lumped in with sleazeball jackasses such as that.
Ryan and I have had many discussions at my site regarding women. He is ALWAYS unfailingly polite and exceptionally respectful. He actually refers to himself as a feminist and those principles mean something to him.
We both have Irish backgrounds. Our wits have been known to be drier than the Sahara on various occasions.
When he made that quip that you’re referring to, I can assure you that that was a joke. But it may not have struck someone that way if they didn’t know him well.
So please feel free to peruse MEDFLY QUARANTINE at your leisure with no underlying resentment.
Trust me. Ryan’s one of the good guys.
I feel very honoured that he would refer to me as one of his favourite film bloggers.
He’s certainly one of mine.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
[...] AWFJ Women On Film - The Week In Women, June 12, 2009 - MaryAnn … [...]
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Is it any surprise that Ms. Johanson refuses to continue this thread any longer? Marilyn and Miranda, two wonderful writers with strong feminist values, have come to my defense (and thank you both so very much for that— I think of both of you as friends and admire you both so highly, and it’s touching that you both think so highy of me). This doesn’t seem to fit into the equation Ms. Johanson laid out—in fact, it runs counter to her agenda.
So let me see if I understand this— according to Ms. Johanson, it was ‘unreasonable’ of me to request that she simply adress her concerns with my post in the comment section of my blog, where I could have responded to them and sorted out any misunderstanding (though something tells me Ms. Johanson would rather grind an axe than bury the hatchet). However, it’s also ‘unreasonable’ of me to expect her to continue the debate in the PUBLIC FORUM that she slandered me in (and being associated with these sexist sleazeballs is slander).
Of course she was willing to engage in debate with Adam, who proved himself to be every bit as immature and misogynist as Ms. Johanson presumed. Anything that runs counter to her sexist generalizations is roundly ignored.
I’d say we have exposed a coward.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I haven’t felt so… dismissed and invisible in ages.Oh good lord. If you actually think Ryan’s comment was a serious admission to a previously held ignorance (rather than a cute statement about the presence of a largely forgotten, unheard voice, which includes his blog’s co-writer Emily), then your bullsh*t detector is on the fritz. Chill.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Sorry, Adam, I’ve been busy being beautiful and misunderstood, and ugly and lonely. One or the other.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis. You saved me a fortune in therapy bills this month.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Thank you for proving my point, Ms. Johanson. Enjoy disparaging amateur writers and cherry-picking arguments to fit into your shallow world-view founded on bias. You seem to be quite skilled at it.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Hey Ryan, it’s kind of weird how Ms. Johanson keeps ignoring your comments, huh? Like you said: a coward has been exposed.
lol rob
September 12th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
GoKlavierKlavierFan…
Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website Enjoy!…
October 7th, 2009 at 1:26 am