Casual Sexism Yay

[bobtheenchantedone]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/77901/

Dear Try,

The Hunt for Red October. Hardly any females. Best. Movie. Ever.

-El-ahrairah

I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant that way, but this is the most sexist answer I have seen on the Board recently. Way to imply that movies get better the fewer women there are.

But even without that being the real meaning, I still don't understand why "hardly any females" was even necessary in the answer.

[The Moo]

But even without that being the real meaning, I still don't understand why "hardly any females" was even necessary in the answer.

For a movie (military especially) made before same sex attraction was even talked about in polite society other than in a completely disparaging way, this is a way of emphasizing the complete absence of romance. The hardly any females just underlines his claim that there was no romance in the movie. Could it have been worded differently? Certainly. But I do believe the point made was the one intended.

[bobtheenchantedone]

"It's a war movie" would have been a much better way of putting that. That is both less sexist and more descriptive; after reading the answer all I knew about Red October was that it didn't have women in it.

[The Moo]

Are cold war movies actually war movies? And is war movie synonymous with lack of romance? Or lack of female presence? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Concorde]

I definitely saw this answer and choked on my drink.

Hopefully it wasn't meant that way, but I was a bit appalled by the double meaning.

[Owlet]

Sorry guys--he was being facetious and definitely didn't realize the other reading. I know this person in real life, and sometimes you can't tell if he's being sarcastic even when you're talking face-to-face. I think his logic was on the line that The Moo is describing. I'll tell him to watch for that in the future.

[El-Ahrairah]

Sexism definitely not yay. Sorry everyone, I definitely did not want to give the impression that movies with fewer women are better. I meant it sarcastically, as a response to the question. I felt that the question implied that romance decreases the quality of a movie. I thought that The Hunt for Red October was an especially apt answer because it lacked almost any females and thus even the ability to portray "traditional" romance. I see I could have worded that more sensitively, with the sarcasm explained.

[vorpal blade]

I feel like I must not be understanding the question and answers the same way as some other people. To me the questioner thought that romance increases the quality of a movie or book to such an extent that the questioner could think of only a single example of a popular movie or classic book that didn't have a strong element of romance in it. The question was, "Are there any very popular and/or classic books or movies that don't have a strong element of romance or any romance at all?" So I'm surprised that El-Ahrairah assumed that the question implied that romance decreases the quality of a movie.

I saw nothing sarcastic in El-Ahrairah's straight forward answer to the question being asked. There were hardly any females in the movie, therefore the movie did not have an element of romance in it, but it was a popular movie. El-Ahrairah thought it the best movie ever.

When I read that some people found sexism in the answer my response was, you have got to be kidding me. Seriously? Really? A guy comments that there were hardly any females in the movie in response to the question of are there any popular movies without romance. How on earth could you interpret that to mean that the movie was popular or good because there were no females in it? Really, you have got to be hypersensitive to finding sexism to think so.

Well, that's the way I look at it anyway.

[Concorde]

Really, you have got to be hypersensitive to finding sexism to think so.

You know, this statement absolutely infuriates me because it minimizes the feelings that accompany sexism and being treated poorly because of your gender. It minimizes my feelings by calling them hypersensitive and suggests that I'm overreacting and my feelings aren't valid. I'm not going to apologize for interpreting the answer in a sexist manner, because that's how I saw it. At the same time, I'm not going to pretend that it's impossible to view it in a completely non sexist manner as well. I know El didn't mean it that way and I have no ill will towards him, but I am definitely rather pissed that you are minimizing my feelings.

I viewed it in a sexist manner because I have been treated deplorably due to my gender recently and that's what's on my mind. When you turn every corner and a large, sexist stone gets lobbed at your face you start to expect to see sexism everywhere, including offhanded comments where it wasn't meant. I'm so sorry that you don't see my feelings and interpretation as valid because you have likely never experienced blatant discrimination based on your gender and don't know how sensitive to it you can become when you were told a week ago that "you're wasting your time here and everyone knows you're just here to find a husband" or that you're inferior to others because you're female, or that class would be better if you weren't the only female in it (yes, I was told this yesterday) because then they wouldn't have to be sensitive or aware of what they were saying all the time. I could literally go on and on about how I am minimized because of my gender, and I can guran-damn-tee you that you haven't experienced half of what females go through. If you had, you sure as hell wouldn't think that I was being oversensitive.

So basically your opinion and view is not the end-all, be-all and does not change the fact that my feelings are still valid just because you think I'm hypersensitive. And no, I'm not freaking kidding you.

So basically SURPRISE! People can view and interpret things in different ways! And just because they do so differently than you doesn't mean they're oversensitive or ridiculous! They've just had different life experiences than you! Hooray for open-mindedness!

(And before anyone asks, I am not a man hater. I love men. I disagree with the #yesallwomen movement and I am not a SJW-- I'm just sick of being told that what I'm supposed to view sexism as and how I'm supposed to react to it.)

[mic0]

Really, you have got to be hypersensitive to finding sexism to think so.

In addition to what Concorde said, I'd say the original answer also has some pretty typical implicature. "The Hunt for Red October. Hardly any females. Best. Movie. Ever." People generally try to say things that are relevant and if something is irrelevant then people tend to try and figure out if it is actually relevant in some way. This answer was so short that it isn't a stretch to assume, as a reader, everything in it was deliberate. The last two statements (Hardly any females; best movie ever) could be completely unrelated to each other, but rarely do people say nonsequiters. They are probably related. Now, the writer was actually being tongue-in-cheek, but obviously tone is hard to convey in this sort of answer. But anyway, my point is, the sexist implication is not hard to find at all. There may be multiple interpretations, fine, but I don't think all the people here who interpreted it one way were looking for trouble.

[Marduk]

Tangentially related, but I think it important here to remember that just because someone isn't TRYING to be sexist (or racist or classist or whatever) doesn't mean they AREN'T. And even if it is unintentional, the onus is on them to correct the issue.

(Although, being a man, I wasn't offended, El-Ahrairah, I think it is good that you apologized.)

[Concorde]

I think it's great he apologized as well, even if he didn't intend it. Nice guy-- I've liked his answers (and I liked the questions that he used to ask, too). Keep up the good work, El.

[Portia]

Sexism definitely not yay. Sorry everyone, I definitely did not want to give the impression that movies with fewer women are better. I meant it sarcastically, as a response to the question. I felt that the question implied that romance decreases the quality of a movie. I thought that The Hunt for Red October was an especially apt answer because it lacked almost any females and thus even the ability to portray "traditional" romance. I see I could have worded that more sensitively, with the sarcasm explained.

Thanks for apologizing.

I was trying to think of all-female movies (For Colored Girls is one), but it was hard to think of any where romantic relationships weren't a primary factor. Of course, two female leads can be romantically involved, as in Blue Is the Warmest Color. (Can I just state on the record the fact that that girl is no more than 15 years old freaks me the hell out? I don't care if you're French lesbians, that just seems predatory.)

[mic0]

I couldn't come up with any all female casts. I couldn't come up with any majority female casts without any romantic plots. The internet says there are a few movies with all female casts, but they aren't exactly well-known. Makes me sad. Coming up with movies with almost all men or no romantic plot is pretty easy.

I still endorse Arranged, though, which is on Netflix streaming and is about two women coming to terms with their arranged marriages and their religious beliefs. Technically romantic, but also deals with relationships with their families, each other, religion, etc.

P.S. Not a movie, but there are tv shows with largely female casts that don't have a romantic plot. The only one I can think of right now is The Bletchley Circle.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Thanks for popping in here, El! Like I said, I was fairly sure you didn't mean it that way, and I'm glad to know that I was right. : )

I was also fairly sure that at least one person would call me hypersensitive, so I was right on two counts! Hooray.

[Random]

I disagree with the #yesallwomen movement.

Wait, how do you disagree with that? *is confused*

Also, Concorde I like you. Let's be friends.

[Concorde]

Wait, how do you disagree with that? *is confused*

Also, Concorde I like you. Let's be friends.

Full disclosure, I didn't follow the Twitter tag very closely, but whenever I looked at it, the overall idea was good, but at the same time, I felt it contained a lot of misandry and suggested that all women are just naturally afraid because of men and that we all have to feel afraid all of the time because of men, even when they've never done anything to you. I dunno. I had a lot of FB friends post stories that kind of made me wrinkle my forehead in confusion.

People were saying they needed #yesallwomen because they were scared all the time and sometimes I felt it was over exaggerated. One FB friend told a story about how she got on the frontrunner in the evening by herself and a group of guys near her glanced over at her (literally, all they did was glance at her) and she started crying because she was so scared about what they might do to her. I thought it was jumping to extreme conclusions that all men had malicious intent.

I still haven't completely sorted out all of my feelings on the movement, but I feel the meaning was somewhat diluted by fear-mongering and misandry.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I understand where you're coming from. I think there are some women who get worked up over pretty much nothing - I'm in a couple of feminist groups on FB and have to admit I have rolled my eyes more than once at the things they complain about. But on the other hand, the society we live in carefully brings up women to be afraid of men. It's in media, in how our religions teach modesty and chastity, and in the casual sexism that we're surrounded with. It's also interesting to note that the woman who started the #YesAllWomen tag eventually asked for people to stop using it because she was getting death threats.

I admit, though, that while it was cathartic and courageous for many of the women who participated, all #YesAllWomen did was point out a problem - and, in some ways, perpetuate the problem. It did end up fostering the idea that most if not all men are dangerous, rather than focusing on the fact that women felt unsafe. But it also perpetuates the problem to blame the women for being too scared. It again places at women's feet the burden of trying to change themselves in order for there not to be an issue, rather than looking at the problem as a whole (men, women, and society included) to try to find a real solution.

[BringerOfFire]

To paraphrase the swear words thread http://www.theboardboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3473, those are just words, why do you let them bother you?

[wryness]

To paraphrase the swear words thread http://www.theboardboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3473, those are just words, why do you let them bother you?

(Potential trolling? I did a little double-take when I saw this post.)
If you are not trolling--oh snap. Others will have more to say, but please consider this:

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that [speaking] which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.." - Matthew 15:11

I'm not referencing this specifically to the perhaps-slightly-unintentioned-sexism mentioned earlier in this thread, but to our perception of sexist language in particular, and demeaning language in general. The Savior had some strong words about calling someone "raca," or a fool--I would also posit that that warning/counsel applies to any sort of intentionally disparaging remark, which includes sexism.

Also, James 3 (entire chapter).

If you are trolling, you know better. If you were not trolling, I hope the above references provide some food for thought.