Wow. Glad it had subtitles, since I don't have sound...had not thought of that in those terms.
I'm not much of a movie-goer and my criteria for a good movie are unrelated to gender, but it's a sad commentary on attitudes if the only women allowed to talk to women in most movies must talk about men. (Should check scriptwriters--if men, do they think that's all women talk about? Or just all that male viewers want to see/hear them talk about?) LOTR did have four named women (R & I counted) but they never talk to each other...only Eowyn and Arwen are ever in the same place at the same time. It would probably bother me more if I saw more movies (but there aren't that many with galloping horses, swordfighting, and good scenery.)
I don't go to many movies either...but several of my favorites do not pass this test. Constantine. The Matrix. I'm not 100% sure of the Harry Potter films--I know there are scattered *very short* conversations between women such as Prof McGonnigal and Dolores Whatsername in "Order of the Phoenix." Not sure if those count.
Even Aliens...I think Ripley talks to the female Marine, but maybe the fact that this is an action flick featuring a woman is enough to declare it sound. Except I do recall a criticism at the time that action women are often put in the position where they have to save children. No big principle involved, or revenge, and any of the other motivations that a male hero might have. You could argue that saving a child trumps all that, but it often seems a shortcut, and one of the few justifications a woman may be allowed for killing people...says she who wrote a novella in which Jani is faced with a child in peril.
I haven't seen all the HP movies, so I don't know...and was trying to remember Aliens...thought I remembered Ripley talking to a woman, but not what about or for how long.
Oh--on the action-woman saves child thing. Yes, I think there's a long tradition of thinking that women can only be legitimately violent or even forceful when family or child is in peril. There's a believe that any "real" mother will turn tiger at the least threat to her child (which is OK if society agrees on the threat, but not of course OK if she's too tigerish towards approved authorities.)
It's OK for a woman to be active to benefit children not her own, but there are limits for her to be active benefiting adults she's not related to...hence MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), perceived as mothers seeking to protect children, is one thing, but women active against family violence are less approved, and women active against sexual assault and harassment much less approved.
There's a curious dichotomy in the attitude towards women & violence, resulting from specific periods in history. First there's the "real women aren't at all violent by nature--they need protection--only peril to their child might arouse them to violence" and then there's "women are inherently emotionally unstable and prone to lose control, so if allowed to be violent at all will go too far."
There's also the "women are not taught how to adjust their level of violent response to the situation--by growing up playing sports or getting into regular fist fights or whatever--so when faced with the least threat, they overreact." I think it's the latest in the long line of reasons why women shouldn't be in combat. I have no idea how true it is.
I also recall reading a review of a book about guerillas and revolutionaries where it was stated that the women were more violent than the men.
Society is just not comfortable with violent women, even if the violence itself is approved. I wonder how much of the perception is colored by shock over the violent actions/urges, period? We expect men to mix it up, so it takes a greater level of violence to get our attention.
It's hard to tell how much is reality and how much is social attitudes and conditioning, but I do think our culture notices violence at a lower level in women, and fears it more--it's "unnatural." I don't have the stats with me, but have been told by quite a few lawyers that women are treated more harshly in the justice system, for the same level of violent crime, than are men. In one case in the next county, a woman was found guilty when her ex-husband, who had court-ordered visitation, drove drunk with the children in the car and all were killed. The argument was successfully made that she should have known he was drunk and not allowed the visitation *even though* doing so would have risked her having any parental rights, under the current system of determining custody. (She would have been disobeying a court order to allow him to take the children for a day, and most judges are hostile to women who refuse to allow ex-spouses visitation for any reason.)
What is considered "overreacting" and "out of control" definitely varies with gender: men are not expected to be "in control" (in the sense of being quiet and nonthreatening) all the time. Men can bluster and yell and express anger at even minor annoyances and it's shrugged off. Women are expected to be quiet and polite in all circumstances, so an equivalent amount of noise or behavior from a woman is considered way over the line. OTOH, there are both biological differences and the result of social conditioning that may (may!) tend to women being less controlled in violent situations (though having seen a lot of men in violent situations, I don't think "controlled" is a good label to hang on them, either. Slamming your fist through a window or mirror is not really an example of controlled violence.
Women are socialized that they must not be violent unless their life or the life of a family member is at stake--and then it's no holds barred. Having been told that from an early age, and having been given no other instruction, it's not surprising that when they are violent they go all-out. Today's younger women have had slightly different socialization, including the chance to play sports and learn martial arts. Since I played sports before it was legally required to give girls a chance, I can say that playing contact sports does provide some practice in thinking even in the midst of action. Any martial art (including our kind of fencing in that) under good instruction provides instruction and practice in thinking while acting, and from what I've heard, women are quite as capable of learning the discipline of such arts as men--while also learning how to use what they're taught.
In dealing with law-enforcement in a self-defense situation, a woman is always at a disadvantage...if she is ineffective, it will be assumed she didn't try; if she is too effective, it will be assumed that she initiated the assault and planned to kill or severely injure the "victim." (That women can be murderers is not in doubt.) Many police believe that if a woman being threatened uses a firearm for defense, she will inevitably shoot a full clip. If she doesn't, then she was planning something--she wasn't really scared, because scared women "go too far." (Watching video of actual police behavior, it's clear that not all male police officers refrain from "going too far" and empty their clips, too.)
I'm seeing so much "damned if we do/damned if we don't" in all this that it's frightening. Angering. Crazy-making. Because unless societal perceptions change, women aren't going to be able to develop the ability to come to terms with the use of violence and their relationship with it, because society as a whole will not be able to deal with the change, and the backlash could be tremendous...especially if matters can be twisted to serve either party's political ends.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2010-07-04 03:55 am (UTC)I'm not much of a movie-goer and my criteria for a good movie are unrelated to gender, but it's a sad commentary on attitudes if the only women allowed to talk to women in most movies must talk about men. (Should check scriptwriters--if men, do they think that's all women talk about? Or just all that male viewers want to see/hear them talk about?) LOTR did have four named women (R & I counted) but they never talk to each other...only Eowyn and Arwen are ever in the same place at the same time. It would probably bother me more if I saw more movies (but there aren't that many with galloping horses, swordfighting, and good scenery.)
no subject
Date: 2010-07-04 01:40 pm (UTC)Even Aliens...I think Ripley talks to the female Marine, but maybe the fact that this is an action flick featuring a woman is enough to declare it sound. Except I do recall a criticism at the time that action women are often put in the position where they have to save children. No big principle involved, or revenge, and any of the other motivations that a male hero might have. You could argue that saving a child trumps all that, but it often seems a shortcut, and one of the few justifications a woman may be allowed for killing people...says she who wrote a novella in which Jani is faced with a child in peril.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-05 01:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-05 02:28 pm (UTC)It's OK for a woman to be active to benefit children not her own, but there are limits for her to be active benefiting adults she's not related to...hence MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), perceived as mothers seeking to protect children, is one thing, but women active against family violence are less approved, and women active against sexual assault and harassment much less approved.
There's a curious dichotomy in the attitude towards women & violence, resulting from specific periods in history. First there's the "real women aren't at all violent by nature--they need protection--only peril to their child might arouse them to violence" and then there's "women are inherently emotionally unstable and prone to lose control, so if allowed to be violent at all will go too far."
no subject
Date: 2010-07-05 05:57 pm (UTC)I also recall reading a review of a book about guerillas and revolutionaries where it was stated that the women were more violent than the men.
Society is just not comfortable with violent women, even if the violence itself is approved. I wonder how much of the perception is colored by shock over the violent actions/urges, period? We expect men to mix it up, so it takes a greater level of violence to get our attention.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-06 01:20 pm (UTC)What is considered "overreacting" and "out of control" definitely varies with gender: men are not expected to be "in control" (in the sense of being quiet and nonthreatening) all the time. Men can bluster and yell and express anger at even minor annoyances and it's shrugged off. Women are expected to be quiet and polite in all circumstances, so an equivalent amount of noise or behavior from a woman is considered way over the line. OTOH, there are both biological differences and the result of social conditioning that may (may!) tend to women being less controlled in violent situations (though having seen a lot of men in violent situations, I don't think "controlled" is a good label to hang on them, either. Slamming your fist through a window or mirror is not really an example of controlled violence.
Women are socialized that they must not be violent unless their life or the life of a family member is at stake--and then it's no holds barred. Having been told that from an early age, and having been given no other instruction, it's not surprising that when they are violent they go all-out. Today's younger women have had slightly different socialization, including the chance to play sports and learn martial arts. Since I played sports before it was legally required to give girls a chance, I can say that playing contact sports does provide some practice in thinking even in the midst of action. Any martial art (including our kind of fencing in that) under good instruction provides instruction and practice in thinking while acting, and from what I've heard, women are quite as capable of learning the discipline of such arts as men--while also learning how to use what they're taught.
In dealing with law-enforcement in a self-defense situation, a woman is always at a disadvantage...if she is ineffective, it will be assumed she didn't try; if she is too effective, it will be assumed that she initiated the assault and planned to kill or severely injure the "victim." (That women can be murderers is not in doubt.) Many police believe that if a woman being threatened uses a firearm for defense, she will inevitably shoot a full clip. If she doesn't, then she was planning something--she wasn't really scared, because scared women "go too far." (Watching video of actual police behavior, it's clear that not all male police officers refrain from "going too far" and empty their clips, too.)
no subject
Date: 2010-07-07 12:59 am (UTC)