There’s an instance of this not five miles from my house. A large sign out in front of a bunch of boat storage units. The name?
“Complainin’ Woman.” Think on that.
Oh, and evidence here:
[scroll to the bottom]
That’s so un-self-consciously dumb it’s almost funny.
An allowance does need to be afforded for the different era:
I can. He is a mind-numbingly dumb secretary who is hired at least in part because one of the leads wants to have sex with him. When genderswapped, this is generally considered an offensive sexist stereotype.
It seems exactly what this thread is about: Situations where something seems okay if it’s about one gender, but wrong when genderswapped.
Hell, I’m pretty sure that’s what they were going for in the movie–reverse sexism as a commentary on sexism.
Thank you.
That doesn’t seem to agree with what I found with some Googling -
Cite. I didn’t look for Michigan specifically. If you have a better cite, I would appreciate seeing it.
Regards,
Shodan
The idea is that you need to put your boat in storage because your wife wants it out of the yard. I don’t think the concept is offensive to women or would be offensive if applied in reverse. The name itself is a bit jarring, granted.
Right? And yes, I understand the concept of why they named it that (I mean, men and their expensive toys, can I get an amen? :dubious:), but in the same vein that no on appreciates guys playing the doofus patsy in commercials, the idea that women don’t have their own boats / like to fish / would nag over such a thing in the first place / yadda yadda yadda, is played.
Now, here in east Texas we’re still considerably behind the times and it’s more of a ‘wink and nod and grin’ acceptance of casual sexism, on both sides of the fence. Still doesn’t mean it’s not rampant.
Someone found a cite that indicated 70/30 so yes, I overstated my case.
In addition, there seems to be a difference between spouses (60/40) and overall intimate partners (70/30).
[QUOTE=BigT]
I can. He is a mind-numbingly dumb secretary who is hired at least in part because one of the leads wants to have sex with him.
[/QUOTE]
Did you see the film? I thought they went out of their way to make it clear that wasn’t why they hired him. They hired him because nobody else applied (because unemployment is apparently not a problem in movie world - but they already set that precedent with the first Ghostbusters movie and Winston getting hired off the street despite his complete lack of qualifications… or Jeanine’s instant hiring, for that matter.) The character who was ga-ga over him took constant shit for it. She was made to look like just as much of a fool as he was, especially because he wasn’t remotely interested in her. Yes, it was a total lampshade and deliberate skewering of the dumb secretary trope, but you’re misrepresenting the facts of the story. An entire component of the humor was the idiocy of the woman attracted to him despite the fact he was utterly useless.
And Chris Hemsworth’s performance was inspired. There hasn’t been a dumb secretary that entertaining since Carol/Cheryl Tunt on Archer.
Not really, but what about hundreds and hundreds of wrongs versus a single wrong? The MRA Neckbeards were all up in arms that the secretary was handsome but dumb. A beautiful bimbo has appeared in a movie far, far more times than a handsome dumb man.
Or how 'bout what if we made a movie about busting ghosts, but made the main characters all male? That happened once, and I don’t remember entitled thousands of women pissing and moaning about it.
Times change.
As the Notorious R.B.G. once said, she would like to see 100% of the Supreme Court Justices be female.
''But how can you say that?" she was asked. “Shouldn’t it be 50/50?”
''For hundreds of years 100% of the Supreme Court was male and nobody saw anything strange about that."
(Personally, I’d rather see 100% of justices on the Supreme Court in favor of gender equality, and that ideal is far more important than their individual gender, but that’s just me.)
Right. Because no summer blockbusters exist anymore where the lead characters are all male.
It still seems like you’re trying to steer your thread in a way to showcase as many examples as possible of men being discriminated against, and downplay the ones where women are being discriminated against.
Even the basic premise doesn’t make much sense. Systemic sexism in general is an instance where if you saw the same situation with the genders reversed, it’s clear and obvious that the other sex is being treated or portrayed unfairly. And women feel the insidious effects of systemic sexism much, much more frequently and more severely than men.
If every woman on this board were to provide an example of an instance when they personally were treated unfairly because of their gender, this thread would be hundreds of pages long.
Welcome to the Dope. (Edit: Just saw you’ve been here since freakin’ 2000. Damn, those are some serious Dopin’ years.)
But being the disproportionate victims of rape, murder by spouse, sexual harassment, unequal pay and the subject of ceaseless litigious attempts to control our bodies is nothing compared to the exploitation of poor Chris Hemsworth in that Ghostbusters movie.
That doesn’t mean anything to me. Does that mean anything to you? The times changed in what way; somebody made a movie for the goose that the gander doesn’t like?
Did anyone else think this thread was going to be about holding images up to a mirror, or was it just me?
Yes, while the Kristen Wiig character is practically drooling over Chris Hemsworth from the moment she sets eyes on him, after his interview she tells Melissa McCarthy that they’d better see how the other applicants stack up because he’s obviously got a lot more beauty than brains. McCarthy (who makes it clear that she’s not at all attracted to Hemsworth) reveals that there were no other applicants, so if they want a receptionist he’s their only option.
FWIW I found it plausible enough that only an idiot would apply for a receptionist position with a ghost-hunting start-up located over a Chinese restaurant.
A common complaint from actors about being typecast isn’t because of the people doing casting, but because of the public doing it and confusing them and their characters. Anybody expect Hemsworth to get a lot of botheration from people who think he himself is stupid because of that one role?
I’ll add that the “Brainless Beauty” is a pretty common character type in comedies, and it does not seem to be generally considered “wrong” to have such characters whether they are male or (more commonly) female. Thinking specifically of recent-ish female examples, I do not remember there being any outrage over the Amanda Seyfried character in Mean Girls, Brittany on Glee, or Haley on Modern Family.
On the US version of The Office there was also cute-but-dumb receptionist Erin, who was romantically pursued by her boss Gabe and dated him for a while even though she wasn’t really attracted to him. After they break up he actually follows her into the women’s bathroom at work to try to persuade her to take him back, which would be incredibly inappropriate in real life. Again though, I don’t remember any shock and horror over such a situation being portrayed in a comedy.