I’m trying to understand the behavioral model that Ms. McGowan is advocating:
As 20th Century Fox’s X-Men: Apocalypse stormed theaters over the long weekend, critics took aim at billboards featuring Oscar Isaac’s Apocalypse choking Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique.
Among them was Rose McGowan, who elaborated on a May 25 Facebook post to THR: “There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled. The fact that no one flagged this is offensive and frankly, stupid. The geniuses behind this, and I use that term lightly, need to to take a long hard look at the mirror and see how they are contributing to society. Imagine if it were a black man being strangled by a white man, or a gay male being strangled by a hetero? The outcry would be enormous. So let’s right this wrong. 20th Century Fox, since you can’t manage to put any women directors on your slate for the next two years, how about you at least replace your ad?”
She continued: “I’ll close with a text my friend sent, a conversation with his daughter. It follows: ‘My daughter and I were just having a deep discussion on the brutality of that hideous X-Men poster yesterday. Her words: ‘Dad, why is that monster man committing violence against a woman?’ This from a 9-year-old. If she can see it, why can’t Fox?”
The article includes a picture of the billboard in question.
Here’s my question. Would Ms. McGowan accept a depiction of a man being throttled by Apocalypse? Would she accept a depiction of a woman throttling a man? The content of a billboard advert is clear: it’s the movie. X-Men movies appeal to the fans. They expect violence.
I’m probably the only person in this audience who’s actually fought women in martial arts competitions. I have occasionally inflicted serious injury on women against whom I’ve competed. Not deliberately. They’re just too fragile.
I think that depictions of men and women inflicting violence on each other should be avoided even in fantasy movies because it’s just too dangerous a norm but if you accept that you must accept the possibility of men inflicting violent injury on women needs to be accepted as well. When depicted it should be done so realistically and brutally which means that women may be injured. Anything else is delusional and, consequently, dangerous.
‘Dad, why is that monster man committing violence against a woman?’
Doesn’t the question answer itself? He’s a monster.
Seriously, in a blog post questioning how necessarily Catholic is Tolkien’s LOTR, a commenter questioned Tolkien’s adherence to free will and the availability of redemption because Orcs are given neither.
Orcs are monsters. It’s simple. The commenter never got it, and I never understood the commenter.
To set up the drama, so she can be rescued. It seems to me these days no one has the patience for dramas like ” Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe” or “Witness For the Prosecution” or “Twelve Angry Men”.
Now, without graphic violence, there is no drama, only action which must be violent and fast paced to attract audiences.
Or she could tell her daughter “That will happen to you if you don’t behave”
They expect violence.
Not only that, but they bloody well know who Apocalypse _is_. That is, assuming his name didn’t give it away!
And today I saw a story purporting to show how the Chewbacca Mask video shows the intrinsic racism of EVERYTHING.
America is over. Freedom of thought is dead. Hell, logical thought is dead. The idiots and the psychopaths have won.
I’ve also learned today that having a hobby is sexist.
I wonder if we’re approaching peak stupid? Is stupid even a thing that can peak?
The general argument of some of the feminists, in a nutshell:
In the full movie, an image can be put into context — the woman can have a large degree of agency, and the image can be something other than simply a large man brutalizing a woman. When that image is taken out of context and used for the ad, it loses most of that context.
There were hundreds of similar moments of violence in the movie that they could have chosen for their marketing, but they decided that “large man brutalizing a woman” was the image that would appeal to the general public more than any of the others — because there is an undercurrent of our society that finds brutalizing women enticing. And that image was then heavily promoted out of context, driving that undercurrent.
I’m not sure I completely buy the argument, but I can definitely understand it, and see why someone would be troubled by it.
@Gustopher, there is the Women in Refrigerators critique that women in superhero stories are often victimized as plot devices to advance the male character’s story arc. But that’s usually about women dying or becoming permanently injured. There are tons of comic book covers of male superheroes being grabbed and strangled by the neck. I’ll post a link to one shortly. The covers are advertisements too, and I don’t think they communicate much more than our hero is in trouble, how does he escape this? Read on, true believer!!!
This is an image of batman being held/strangled by the neck in a similar pose: Link
There is a famous scene of Darth Vader strangling one of his underlings by the neck, but cannot tell if it was used for promotions.
PD Shaw — comic book covers are seen by about a hundred thousand people across the US in specialty shops. It’s a dying art form.
And, there is a difference between brutalizing men and brutalizing women — the cultural context behind these two acts. As a comparison, people thought George W. Bush looked a bit like Curious George, and since they also had the same name, there were a fair number of charicatures along those lines. Doing the same thing with Obama, however, brings along centuries of racism and comparing black people to monkeys, and anyone who says that it doesn’t is either willfully ignorant or lying.
Does brutalizing a woman have a different effect than brutalizing a man in the exact same manner? Probably — women are depicted as victims far more often then men, and are easier to victimize in real life, and it is much more likely to lead to sexual violence, etc. That’s the general argument anyway.
And, finally, as I said, I don’t fully buy into the argument anyway, but I am willing to defer to the people who are more likely to be aggrieved when they say they are aggrieved.
Also, I’m not sure how this is relevant, but it surely must be…
Batman was raped by a woman who then dropped off the resulting child about a decade later. And this … this … thing happened to Superman: http://www.cracked.com/article_17626_the-5-creepiest-sex-scenes-in-comics.html (and also to Big Barda).
So, men are also brutalized in comics, and it can lead to sexual violence, but it is far less common. And the men are generally just drugged.