Radar rounds up the decade's most misogynistic movies

Oh gee I had no idea such things were going on in Hollywood movies, you sure have opened my eyes. Please this isn't news to anyone, sex sells, always has and always will. Yes, men are generally the ones being sold on sex, once again not news to anyone, we are visually stimulated creatures and more so than women.
However, we are not the only guilty party here, it's not as if women arent putting themselves out there. For example just recently Paris Hilton announced she is holding adutions for a new gal pal to party with and hundreds of apps. came pouring in, I think we can agree she isn't exactly heading the women's movement. The Pussy Cat Girls aren't exactly the Spice Girls either at least the Spice Girls had a message worth listening to.
Oh and why knock on Hillary Clinton? She may not win, but she has made more progress than any other women before her in an election, she certainly will not be forgotten.
I'am sure there are plenty of positive women role models out there, it just seems we only hear about the Paris Hiltons and Nichole Richies, maybe if the media would quit giving them so much attention we could hear about the Hilary Clintons of the world.

Radar has run some tough pieces in the past, this one has a little too much fluff for me.

If you want to jump in the deep end, check out Twisty's place.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/

How could you have forgotten two of the most sexist, misogynistic stinkers of the decade? "Life or Something Like It" from 2002 with Angelina Jolie, and "View from the Top" from 2003 with Gwineth Paltrow. Both feature "career gal" cliches straight from the 1960s and a woman + career - boyfriend = misery theme.

Isn't it interesting how the comments here do such a good job of proving the point of the piece. Well done, boys! Thanks for helping me remember how important it is to vote for Hillary.

Maybe you're just being a bit pessimistic. At the end of 13 Going On 30 I never assumed that she quit her job! Just because she got her dream home doesn't mean she had to give up her dream job!

I had a look through the article and just some points/comments in no particular order.

I don't like Jack Black and if a friend said they did like Jack Black I might have to rethink our friendship. However, the argument that the film is sexist because Kate Winslet is much hotter than him is crap. If we said that Brad Pitt would never sleep with say, Whoopi Goldberg because she is really ugly, well that might be a sexist statement. Without the specific people in it the position is that no good looking man or woman would bother with inferior meat. But maybe that's not so much sexism as it is not liking ugly people and maybe you are ok with that If you are, you are kind of an asshole.

If I recall correctly Seth from Superbad is not the moral voice of the film. That was the kid who was in Juno. Seth is a creepy deranged monster and the point is that you laugh at his ridiculousness. If you watched the film thinking the writers thought that Seth was right about anything you did not understand the film. The film was also about him growing up a bit, realising that it was ok and not weird to be emotionally connected to people and maybe being less of a moron. If he appeals to people it is because he is a voice that some of us have that is unworthy of us but comes from growing up in a world where men and women are adversaries. Worse than adversaries really. The film, if I am not crediting it with too strong an ethical imperative, describes how the roles men and women are adopted by can be contaminated by one another and how the fear of that contamination pulls people into these bizarre contortions of masculinity and femininity. And, maybe, it says it might be best to unwind oneself out of them.

The devil wears prada was a weird one. Every last man I know thought it was stale and that the cult of shallowness it celebrated was repellent. I would guess that half the women I know loved it and the other half felt the same as the men. A quarter of the people, if the people I knew were somehow representative of the general population and they're not, would still be a pretty good demographic to dominate in.

I never saw the john Tucker film or the Uma Thurman superwoman film. Thurman picks some awful films and I don't know why she does because she is so clearly capable of more.

Sin City was definitely sexist but it was also a brilliant film. It would be great if all sexist or in some way questionable films were badly written, poorly directed and visually unappealing. Sin City aped the noir dialogue convincingly and the repetition of key lines enhanced the meaning of those lines but in a way that was always relevant to the context and in some cases such as "A young girl lives, an old man dies. fair trade" was the whole story. Its a pity the sexism ruined it for you because Sin City was a triumph in every other department. Especially the aesthetics.

I was never even aware of hustle and flow and wedding crashers was simply not funny. No one, not even the men it focused on, appeared as a human being in it. The all powerful pillar/dick thing at the end embarrassing. I was never going to be willing to watch 13 going on 30 so I have no idea what the content of that was like. If I was going to take a guess though it was a promotion of gender stereotypes film for young women. If that was so it is a much more repulsive film than Superbad.

As for Brown Bunny in some ways real sex might be less ridiculous than what passes for sex in films. Sex is often ridiculous but the simulacrum hollywood shows is usually ridiculous because it has nothing to do with sex. Often the bizarre things that go on in sex scenes describe and stand for some political position. In the 1970s people were offended by the Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland's sex scene in Don't Look now because it seemed too real. It was closer to what sex is. Sex is the flesh and blood act but it is also the getting dressed after and it is the going to the sex act. Sex is desire but also resignation, sometimes embarrassing but at other times the absence of embaressement, it is funny but sometimes quite serious, it is being tired and feeling some kind of tenderness for the other person. It is understanding the other person but at other times not understanding or knowing them at all. Imagine that sex is like chess in some ways (possibly not the adversarial ways or maybe that does it for you), made up of different pieces, dependent on agreed rules and the context for meaning. If you imagine that you see that pornography is at best a parody of sex. Its takes a piece like a rook off the board and says it is still a rook when its not on the chessboard. It is not. Its a funny shaped rock in the absence of the board. Sex is not sex without the otherstuff going on. Hollywood on the other hand often rewrites the rules of chess and then selectively removes pieces. If one were to learn about sex or chess this way one would have a highly problematic understanding of sex or chess. And yet somehow these are in contention for being our norms. I have taken my Wittgenstein chess piece anologies far enough now but I kind of just want to say that it might be necessary to show what a blowjob is so that hollywood does not forget.

It might be my memory but wasn't that Julia Roberts film supposed to be really sad because things don't work out. If the intended effect is sadness you can't say it is antifeminism because we are supposed to feel for and not laugh at. Also, sad films are more motivating than happy ones. I don't care because it was not an interesting filmand my memory of the film is kind of sketchy. No opinion on the Reese Witherspoon thing apart from i would bet that the person who got the most benefit out of that film was probably reese Witherspoon.

You are spot on about the Mel Gibson one. That film is just wrong. Dislike Mel if you wish (I think, because i don't know him in real life, he is very funny) you can't deny he makes a technically good film and that he can in fact act. Even if I want to dislike him on screen he can be very charming.

You've managed to prove another point; Women ruin movies with their completely useless analysis of them.

Just remember, the twelve or so people who care about what you think aren't the people Judd Apatow is aiming for, but than again, those twelve people probably live lonely lives in small apartments and spend their time screaming at a television because its the closest thing they have to a friend... so I'm not sure who is aming for them.
Good luck in the future, and I truly pity you for your lonely, self-righteous, mockery of a life. Have fun spending your time complaining rather than actually being useful.

I agree with most of what I'm reading above; ESPECIALLY comments posted by "cornsaladisgood".... I'm not inclined to analyze each of the movies identified and their actors and bore anyone with details - or an overanalysis and assumptions of what writers TRULY mean - or an extended paragraph of sex and it's meanings.
What I do want to say is that must be under some misguided assumption or belief that movies are PRETEND. If we want our sons and daughters growing up in a specific way, isn't it OUR job to make sure that we pass along our values to them, not rely on the movie industry?
Please folks....whoever you are at Radar, welcome to the real world and can't you find something more to blog about in terms of film that matters? How about some commentary on "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" or "Iraq For Sale".
Documentaries do exist for those interested in learning more about things and not to simply sit and escape for a couple hours.

Isn't it interesting how the comments here do such a good job of proving the point of the piece. Well done, boys! Thanks for helping me remember how important it is to vote for Hillary. shopping cart software

"It's not just because Chloë Sevigny gave Vincent Gallo a very real blowjob. Okay, actually it is."

I must have missed the episode where we learned that oral sex is misogynist.

Film-Fatale1907.blogspot.com - this is my website and it's dedicated to my year-long project of analyzing women in contemporary cinema. If you feel so inclined, please take a look and comment.

I agree with a lot of Monaghan's choices, but she doesn't give enough depth to her arguments to make them stick. Feminist film theory and feminism in general is a tricky business because if you don't back up your claims with substantial evidence or thought, then people will be even more inclined to put you down rather than take you seriously because it's easier to do so.

"The Brown Bunny "is a misogynistic film because, to put it simply, Vincent Gallo is an egomaniac who boxes the women in this film into "types." These types are supposed to represent the lovely diversity of his long-lost love, Chloe Sevigny, but the only character depth it shows us is that each type is more than willing to partake in some lip-locking afternoon delight on the whim of Mr. Gallo. This makes the blow-job sequence all the more appalling because it says that Gallo, who has taken a significantly long road trip to forget his past troubles with Sevigny, is, in essence, only pining for the woman who gave him the best head, not for the woman he supposedly loved and cherished for so many years. Puh-leeze.

What I don't understand is why people take a relatively reasonable argument about sexism in the contemporary movies and turn it into a personal attack on themselves, friends, parenting methods, the entire nation of men, etc. etc.
What I took from the article was that many of the themes, characters and story lines found in those films represent a fairly sexist viewpoint. Films that don't allow women to be anything but someone's wife, girlfriend or act as a perpetual damsel in distress. I think its safe enough to claim that these notions are a tad bit outdated. And I think that the biggest concern is that these movies glorify or normalize all of those notions.

After all having the reduction of a woman's intellect and self control (such as in Super Ex-girlfriend) is much less seriously taken in the guise of a comedy but in many ways society still views women as over emotional feelers prone to neurotic behavior. After all who here has not heard or been told (or even said about themselves) that someone is "PMS'ing". That being said I'm glad I'm not the only one who found Sin City sexist (and if pretty cinematography equated to a good movie then one could argue that a number of crap movies were good) and thought that Super Bad wasn't really all that clever.

Oh and on a final note, don't you think the media and societies view of Paris Hilton and the "tragic" young starlets to be representitive of sexism? After all no one comments in such negative ways about...say Colin Farrel's (an acknowledged alcoholic and playboy) or Owen Wilson's (a.k.a Butterscotch Stallion) hard partying ways with such disdain or disrespect.

THANK YOU for this list!! I have watched almost all these movies and thought just about the same thing. And the fact that I felt this about successful movies (some of which I enjoyed in spite of myself) made me feel as though no one else noticed these things! It is an incredibly sexist (and racist while we're at it) medium and it's important for people to stand up and take notice of these trends so we can move towards a change.
I was especially happy to see Superbad, Shoot 'Em Up, and Brown Bunny on these lists. All 3 of these movies actually made me feel sick to my stomach at points while watching them. And naturally, they were all recommended to me by men I find have rather sexist personalities. I just hate the stereotypes and treatment of women that films like this promotes.
It's not to say these movies don't have redeeming qualities. But I felt disgusted by a lot of the outright implications they were making with their treatment of the women. The fact that Brown Bunny's climax centers around a real-life blow job given by starlet Chloe Sevigny to the director of the film infuriates me and make me want to throw up. We NEVER would have a movie that's climax centered around a man giving Oral Sex to a woman, even in a simulated way, no less, ACTUALLY doing it. But having a woman service a man, getting down on her knees and LITERALLY performing oral sex is supposed to be artistic and acceptable? I know that it may feminists at times can be touchy, but we have reason to be when the media and people around us are constantly objectifying us and telling us we are less than men. It's the same reason African Americans have the right to be sensitive about racial implications. We have good reason to be!

Right on.
I will admit that Superbad was quite funny.
It was also the most misogynistic hour and a half I've been subjected to in some time. It amazes me how people refuse to admit that something can be funny and very offensive at the same time. Superbad was both. Depending on your sensibilities, it was more of one than the other. For me, it was a revolting glorification of tireless sexual objectification of women, and the main characters, whom many people will defend as merely comic sketches, were nonetheless intended to be endearing and sympathetic. That is, disgusting boys who treat women horribly were made to be funny and appealing, so that all the men who act like this can also see themselves as comic heroes, rather than beasts.

Hmm.

"The Holiday: Repeat offender Nancy Meyer directed this flick that asks us to believe that Kate Winslet would end up with Jack Black just because she's not as skinny as Cameron Diaz."

I've heard this quite a lot from feminists: also in relation to `Knocked Up`.

That the very idea of attractive women falling for men who aren't conventionally attractive is some kind of slander towards the female sex.

Isn't it feminists who complain about men judging women based on the impossible-to-attain perfection they see in magazines and movies?

But I guess it's ok for feminists to complain when MEN don't meet the ideal.

Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Two things:

First, if sexism is "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (websters), then you are left with having female characters who cannot exhibit any behaviors or emotions that are stereotypically female. I am pretty sure no one would even make that movie, and even if it was made, then this website would probably just decry it as homophobic.

Second, if many of the films are sexist because of the views expressed by men, wouldn't that mean that the films are anti-men? If Seth is a clueless cretin who is scared of vaginas, shouldn't I be pissed off that adolescent males have been reduced to nothing but mindless bags of flesh that surround a phallus? If Vincent Gallo is an egomaniac who likes blowjobs, shouldn't that offend me as a non-egomaniac male who enjoys receiving oral sex? Should I fly off the handle because the male characters in Wedding Crashers are portrayed as shameless sex-hounds that will go to extraordinary lengths to trick scores of women into sleeping with them. If portraying someone in a way that they exhibit behavior that is in line with gender stereotypes is sexist, then I would defy anyone to come up with a movie that is not sexist, and I would posit that any movie that is sexist because a man views women as needy, neurotic, emotional, solely a sex object, etc. is more anti-men than anti-women.

People care what Katherine Heigl thinks? Judd Apatow is still making movies? This planet blows.

So let me see if I have this straight:

If a movie has a girl fall for a guy Amy Monaghan thinks isn't cute: the film is sexist (Superbad).

If a movie portrays even one man who comments on a woman weight, the film is sexist (The Devil Wears Prada).

If Amy Monaghan doesn't like the lead, it's sexist (The Break Up).

If a movie dares to portray a woman falling for an unattractive man because - of all things - his personality, it's sexist (The Holiday)

If a movie is based on a comic book, and all its characters are comic book characters, and some of these comic book characters are female, it's sexist (Sin City).

If it has women who aren't perfect, it's sexist (Mona Lisa Smile).

If it gives us a feel good, you're perfect the way you are movie that's stupid and unrealistic - basically, if it's like every single Hollywood romcom, it's sexist (Bridget Jones Diary).

I think this article does more to set back feminism than any of these movies. What Women Want is a legitimately sexist film, but it's buried here behind a dozen films that aren't. Amy, if you actually exist and aren't just a ploy to rile up readers, Hollywood makes many bad movies, with many implausible and paper thin characters - both men and women. It doesn't make them sexist.

Wow...I can't believe the amount of bullshit that I just had to sift through. Did someone seriously say feminist film theory? Is there really a career path for that kind of thing? These movies are either mostly romantic comedies(which can be deconstructed to Boy want girl, Boy do dumb thing, Boy get girl), or guy movies that are just one long dick and fart joke. Its....a....movie. I don't set my moral compass by Judd Apatow. Honestly, this isn't a hill anyone should die on. There are real sexist issues in the world that need to be addressed. How a NO STAR rated movie, portrays a poorly written character, truly is not that important. We better discussion would be the bias of the posters on this site. Never seeing anything but the feminine view, and not the human one. Its a movie. Smoke a joint, laugh, go for a walk.

If a society can't make fun of itself then what? I think film is more about escapism than anything else. Do some scriptwriters play use the notion of female 'hysteria' and neurosis? They also play use the notion of machismo in male characters. So both sides balance out.

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't read this right.

Are you saying women are not, and never have been duplicitous, self-serving, bitchy, overpowering, clingly, slutty, vengeful, rude, thoughtless, violently-feministic, money-grubbing, or imbecilic?

Please. Stereotypes like these are always based in truth first, or they wouldn't be believable to begin with.

It is not sexist for a woman to date a man who is "less attractive" than she is. Frankly, it only proves she is capable of surpassing the shallow standards of beauty. If the woman is that good-looking, she could find someone more visually appealing if she wanted to (theoretically). Instead, she CHOOSES to be with the man who probably has much more to offer than a pretty face.