Was "Some Girls Do" _THE_ most sexist movie ever made?

The 1960s had lots of spy flicks beginning with the James Bond movies and scores of imitators, some decent, some terrible. Of course they all featured beautiful women in various degrees of exploitation. But “Some Girls Do” (1969), the second movie starring Richard Johnson as Bulldog Drummond, may be in a league of its own. It featured an army of fembots, but not just mechanical bots, oh no: they were formerly human women who’d had their brains removed and replaced with computers.

This movie may have single-handedly spawned the Women’s Liberation movement.

Never heard of it.

Hard to beat (so to speak) New Wave Hookers.

The Stepford Wives, novel and movies, is far more sexist. In that husbands are actually replacing their wives by brainless robots. The concept is more disturbing than an army of fembots.

In what way? :confused:

The army could be male or female or both - they wanted completely obedient soldiers. They undoubtedly made it female for sexist reasons, but the moral problem I see is the replacement of human brains with computers - it’s a problem for either sex.

In The Stepford Wives, the men have decided that they don’t want independent thinking wives, so they replace them with robots. That seems to me to be a purely sexist thing, as a response to the “Women’s Lib” movement.

I kept reading this thread as “sexiest” and my thought was “Well, if they’re doing each other then, yeah, probably.”

Well, The World According to Garp was pretty damn sexist, though in a way that was so subtle that many women thought it was feminist. But the women were all portrayed as psychos (with two exceptions, but even those two were extremely negative examples).

Roberta was originally a man, implying that you had to be born a man to be a good woman. Ellen James had her tongue cut out, implying that to be a good woman you’d needed to have your tongue cut out.

Damn, I opened this thinking it read “sexiest” movie of all time. Damn. :frowning:

I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but the Bulldog Drummond character, who goes back to about 1920, and hasn’t aged well.

That’s pretty kind, considering some of the criticism I’ve seen leveled at the man, which called him virtually a Fascist. He certainly doesn’t come off well in Alan Moore’s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier (James Bond comes off only slightly better)
Several films featuring the character appeared from the 1920s through the early 1950s. In 1967 they tried to revive the character in film, probably because of the success of James Bond, but they only made two of them before they decided the series was a flop. (They were apparently supposed to be comedies, and they went the way of most James Bond parodies/imitators) This was the second (the first was Deadlier than the Male, which sounds just as sexist). I think it’s based on the last published Drummond novel.

But, considering its roots, I’m not surprised it’s sexist. Take heart in the knowledge that it wasn’t supposed to be serious. Like Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs. Or that first Austin Powers movie.



I think The Stepford Wives is supposed to be a commentary on sexism, specifically men’s expectations of female docility and the “happy housewife” mentality of the 1950’s. I haven’t seen the film in the OP, so I can’t say what it’s trying to do re fembots, but if it’s taking inspiration from James Bond that’s probably not a good sign.

Folacin had it precisely right. An army of brainless women is bad but husbands wanting their wives to have no brains at all is far more sexist, and in fact more relevant. That is exactly what some men want in the real world. Some guys just cannot handle the fact that their wives should be more intelligent than they are and I’m sure will show their resentment in physical terms should that superior intelligence be demonstrated.

That’s why The Stepford Wives is the most sexist book or film of all. The author describes in sf terms something chillingly close to reality.

Saying The Stepford Wives is sexist is like saying that 1984 is Stalinist. The Stepford Wives is a satire and a commentary on gender roles and sexism. It would be sexist if the replacement of wives by automatons were seen as positive, instead of it being a horror movie. The concept of robotic wives is sexist; the movie itself is not.

I haven’t seen Some Girls Do, but it’s described as a comedy and the fembots are created by the villain. It sounds more exploitative than satirical, though.

The movie is not sexist. What are you talking about? It’s not cheering the men as they kill their wives and replace them with obedient robots and then high five each other. It’s a horror movie.

You are clearly confused about the meaning of words. You do understand that movies can explore situations without endorsing those situations? As an example, in “Star Wars”, Darth Vader blows up Princess Leia’s home planet. Does this make “Star Wars” a pro-genocide movie? In “Saving Private Ryan”, the movie depicts the Normandy invasion, and the characters fight against German soldiers. The presence of German soldiers in the movie does not make the movie pro-Nazi.


You misunderstood what I was saying. I know full well that the author Ira Levin was not sexist and that he was writing a satire. I meant that the novel itself has a sexist plot. If I were to describe 1984 as the most totalitarian novel written I would not be saying that Orwell was a totalitarian, simply that his novel described a totalitarian society.

But let me put it this way in order to be more clear. The Stepford Wives has the most sexist plot of any novel I’ve read, satire though it be.

I’ll cast my vote for Tomcats, a movie about a bunch of jackasses having a contest to see who can stay single the longest. The movie starts with them accidentally taking a Viagra-like drug at a friend’s wedding, resulting in the whole wedding party sporting giant erections. It goes downhill from there.

There’s glory for you.

I think Zeta One has got to be one of the worst “James Bond meets Sexy Space Aliens” ever.
At one point in the movie, the characters were supposed to be shooting at each other using ray guns. But since the production company ran out of money, they were told to shoot each other using their fingers. :smack:

I’m guessing that the protagonist had sex with at least one of these corpses, too.

I’ve never seen the full film, but the 1971 Pretty Maids All in a Row (chauvinist pig Roger Vadim’s first US movie) basically spends its duration ogling teen high school girls in skimpy outfits, then murdering them off one by one.

Oh, and they’re surrounded by middle-aged men – teachers and administrators and cops, played by luciously handsome actors like Telly Savalas (ugh) – who get to fuck them, because that’s what high school girls liked to do in 1971.

You can see bits and pieces of it on YouTube, including the infamous opening credits scene, which features lots of upskirt shots of teenaged girls.

I have seen the full film. Did you know it was written by Gene Roddenberry? Rock Hudson plays the hunk who is busy with his students. Too bad there were no superhero movies then. He was the hunk of hunks.

Wasn’t every movie from that era about teen sexuality?