Show of hands: how many women were repelled by the Miss Representation trailer?
Jill has the “Miss Representation” trailer over at I Blame the Patriarchy, and I’m sensing some pushback from her obstreperal lobe. Here’s the trailer:
And here’s Jill:
The Spinstitute for Truth and Beauty in Film has yet to screen the whole movie, but if the trailer is any indication, it includes just enough disturbing T&A (as examples, of course) to sufficiently titillate mainstream viewers. Whereupon one becomes suspicious — suspicion is the spinster aunt’s bread & butter — that it’s got a mainstream agenda.
Now, the reason for this little show-of-hands poll is that I had a similar reaction when I first saw the trailer circulating a few months ago. As did all the other grizzled old feminists in my play group. Everybody was like, “oh for fuck’s sake.” T&A? Wonderful. A movie about the pornification of women uses the pornification of women as catnip. Yay.
A year ago I was terribly excited about this movie. The trailer was a huge turn-off.
27 Responses to “Show of hands: how many women were repelled by the Miss Representation trailer?”
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Repelled by the reality, but understand the need to show it in the context of educating about it. Consciousness raising first requires consciousness (says one who realizes now she was unconscious before 2008, but wouldn’t have believed it then).
Re Oprah owning the film, hey, documentaries without distribution fade into obscurity and help no one. At least money is no object.
Besides, the intended audience is not us, it’s those who would be repelled by us — just as I’m repelled by some of the discussion on IBTP, even though I read every post and all the comments, including the ones that challenge my thinking. But if IBTP had been my first introduction to feminism, not sure I’d be one.
*****A
March 29th, 2011 at 12:07 am EST -
JJ says:
Yes, I thought that the amount of skin was a little over the top. I’m also suspicious of some of the women who were interviewed, particularly those who actively participated in the misogyny levied against both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the 2008 misogyny fest. In particular, Jane Fonda and Arianna Huffington, both of whom made sexist remarks on numerous occasions about these female candidates.
-
votermom says:
I am willing to give it a chance, but I am more concerned about what JJ pointed out, that it is showing as sources of wisdom media women like Couric, Fonda, and Huffington who were actively using sexist frames to attack Hillary & Palin in 2008.
-
quixote says:
Let’s see. What else could they have put in the trailer?
Those beyond-creepy pictures of six year-olds dolled up for beauty pageants.
A scene from a night club with all the men looking really fit, showing chests and shoulders and thighs, plus promising codpieces. The women are in shirts and trousers and look like, you know, just women, and are appreciating the sights.
A clever vignette (I haven’t figured out what yet) showing a light bulb moment when someone realizes that there’s a difference between a sex aid and a lover. And that pornification provides the former, not the latter. And that this is actually, when you come to think of it, a pretty big, you know, loss.
So, yeah, there are many things they could have done besides T&A if they actually wanted to throw light on what pornification does to people.
The fact that they didn’t means they don’t have a clue.
-
sam says:
If pornography gets more than a passing mention in a laundry list of problematic media I’ll be very surprised.
Too many feminist firefighters are turning their hoses on burning mailboxes while the blazing home behind them freely spits fire onto the toolshed, the doghouse, and the car.
The phrase “fiddle while Rome burns” could not more aptly describe porn culture’s stranglehold.
-
Toonces says:
1. As usual, I agree with everything Adrienne said.
2. Can anyone recommend a better documentary on this subject?
3. What did Jane Fonda say? I must have missed it.
-
Toonces says:
So, this seems relevant:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gos.....rcial.html
(Yeah, the source sucks, but it’s the only one with pictures/video)
-
Gayle says:
Toonces,
That makes me especially sad as I always associated tennis with feminism. You know, Billy jean king and all the other women who worked to make sure Women’s tennis was taken seriously and the players were treated with respect.
To see Williams pornified like that. . . How awful and disrespectful to other female athletes.
-
JJ says:
Toonces,
Jane Fonda was a big Obot who said Hillary was the patriarchy wearing a vigina. She said this when discussing Hillary’s Iraq war vote. The sad thing is that women punish each other more severely for their mistakes. Democrats didn’t torture John Karry over his war vote the way they did Hillary. I’d love to hear what Jane thinks of Obama now. Also, Fonda has a long history of being part of the problem by over sexualizing herself and feeding into the sexist memes of women in the medi. From Barberella to Kat Belue, she ran around shaking her ass for the patriarchy. She has a lot of nerve accusing Hillary of working for the patriarchy.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
For sure, the trailer’s exhibit T & A is off-putting for the conscious, but for the unconscious who are the intended audience, it’s possibly normal, good and right. Or at least that’s what Dude Nation claims and tells the unconscious every damned day. This documentary may be lacking in radical feminist edge, but it looks to present a day in the life of the non-default human nation we hardly ever hear from. The unconscious need to hear from that nation.
I’ve wanted to see this thang from the moment I heard about it, and still do. Though I have misgivings about Oprah snatching it up, word was it got a standing ovation at Sundance, followed by a feminist pow-wow, and Oprah intends to distribute the film free for educational audiences. Of course, the film had to be edited before it was deemed fit for young eyes, which itself begs a question about how media got to this sorry state.
My son goes to a charter high school focused on film-making which has a media literacy course. I’m thinking this film should be part of that course, and I’d like to find out how to get hold of the educational version. I notice there’s a lot of over-achieving well-spoken girls in that charter school; this could be a feminist gateway film for some of them, and yeah, maybe a few good boys, too.
-
Ann Bartow says:
Sam makes what I think is a critical point. And anybody who thinks advertising can be “fixed” – made less sexist – without identifying and understanding the larger, oppressive, culturally connected forces at work, including the porn industry, is naive at best.
That being said, I’d ask everybody to give the film the benefit of the doubt, especially before you have seen it. The people involved seem well intentioned and they identify as feminists. They aren’t perfect and the film won’t be perfect. But if they get some things right and it opens some eyes, I’ll be more than okay with that.
-
cabochon says:
I found the “juicy” images in the trailer repulsive, as I do every time they’re flashed at me by the MSM. And Jane Fonda, she’s no real friend to us–she may be no “real” anything. But I agree the film could be useful as a first-time exposure of non-sexist based media criticism to the young or to older people who just really haven’t thought about publically promoted sexism much. Those of us here, we’re too far down the road to find it enlightening.
-
Ann Bartow says:
Succeeding in the entertainment industry without being beautiful in a very narrow and stereotypical way, and also nonthreatening to a passel of Supposedly Liberal Doods, is pretty close to impossible. Jane Fonda may not be somebody you respect, but she could be a lot worse, that’s for sure.
-
Violet Socks says:
I’m rather fond of Jane myself. She’s got some issues, for sure, but she’s also tried to do a lot of good. Gave a lot to Planned Parenthood I believe. I think she’s had a pretty emotionally rough life, starting with being Henry Fonda’s daughter. I always think of her as a person who is trying to do the right thing (even when she makes a mess and is infuriating).
-
Carmonn says:
I saw the Phil Ochs documentary (and most enjoyed the part where Phil’s friend questioned their safety–yes, I said their safety—when exploiting women in a third world brothel, Phil delightfully assured him tourism was too important to the country to harm brothel goers, but I digress) and Tom Hayden was one of the major interviewees. Ever since I’ve been trying to remember more about his relationship with Jane. Based on his adorable lecture to Hillary Clinton that her 1968 self would have been supporting Obama in the 2008 primary, I’m surmising he may not have been the easiest guy in the world to live with.
-
Ann Bartow says:
Look at somebody like Gloria Steinem, who isn’t perfect and doesn’t get everything right (it’s called being human) and takes a lot of hits, but she keeps rolling, keeps trying, keeps working to improve life for women. She doesn’t slam people like Jane Fonda, she inspires them to do good things. Not easy, but valuable.
-
SYD says:
Let’s at least hope that the medium will get the message to a broader audience. Like… uh, my daughter’s generation. Cuz, quite frankly… all my tsk, tsking is not reaching them.
-
Swannie says:
Oprah the traitor owns it? yeah I really trust HER sensibilities . I think presenting the offending material without enough preparation / education is a mistake and just adds to the “normalcy”.
-
Three Wickets says:
First time seeing this version. Yes, I think the early skin shots are gratuitous for a promotional clip, even for this film. When I saw the original (different?) Sundance trailer, I thought it looked like a documentary made by Obots about sexism in the newsmedia. After having come through all the Hillary and Palin bashing from 07 thru 09, it looked pretty hypocritical. That’s my impression still. Obot ‘feminists’ trying to convince themselves that they’re still relevant.
-
Violet Socks says:
Oprah the traitor owns it?
Why do you call her Oprah the traitor?
-
Gayle says:
I’ll go ahead an guess she’s calling Oprah a traitor because of her behavior during the 2008 primary campaign. Obama wouldn’t be President if Oprah hadn’t stepped in to back him and she did ban Clinton from appearing on her show.
I think it’s unfair to judge Jane Fonda on her role as Barbarella or her marriage to Hayden. Both happened prior to her becoming a feminist. Jane has done a lot for women and even more for disadvantaged girls. I find it hard not to like her.
The video is clearly aimed at women who probably have never thought critically about how women are portrayed in the media. Hopefully it will open some eyes.
-
Carmonn says:
I wasn’t judging Fonda for her marriage to Hayden, Gayle. Just the opposite. She’s been through a lot of awful relationships and other negative experiences, as Dr. Socks, alluded to. I couldn’t remember if her marriage to hayden was the really hellish one, I think that was Vadim, but I doubt it was any picnic regardless.
-
Sameol says:
Whenever I watch Oprah (which isn’t all that often but it’s unavoidable sometimes) she seems to indulge in a great deal of victim blaming. And I don’t think her can do message is helpful, because the flip side, if you can’t there’s something wrong with you and you’re a not good enough, is pretty explicit.
Still, I don’t doubt her sincerity. The trailer and the faux illustrative aspect of displaying these images don’t really inspire much confidence though.
-
Swannie says:
Violet… Why do you think? because she is … as far as I am concerned ; and by all means feel free to disagree ; one of the women who agree. By one of the women who agree I refer to the women who in the name of tradition, in the name of customs, in the name of
religion (whatever that religion may be), or race , agree with and promote the patriarchal system in which women live, and by doing so fail to support women .
This behavior is called identification with the aggressor , in an effort to control the outcome and not be a victim. This is the dynamic in abusive homes as well as well as other dysfunctional systems, and those dysfunctional systems include most of the societies and institutions in which we as women live and function, as yet not equal to the other half of the species.
Ultimately the women ( who agree) become part of the problem, just as abused children continue the cycle of abuse.This identification with the aggressor is why so many women participate in the abusive patriarchal system , instead of opposing it. They do not even realize they are behaving in this manner for this underlying reason. I believe has a limited level of awareness of this inequality of women , and made a conscious choice to ignore it. -
Swannie says:
correction : I believe OPRAH has a limited level of awareness of this inequality of women , and made a conscious choice to ignore it.
post needing correction is in moderation
-
Carmonn says:
But can’t that it be said of just about every women in a patriarchal society that we promote the patriarchal system in which women live, and fail to support women? Most of us live within the system, we screw up, we’re forced to make compromises. I don’t know what Oprah’s specifically done that’s so bad, but feminist women who hold Palin and Clinton and many others to double standards they don’t apply to their male counterparts do so because they feel that by succeeding within a system where most women won’t they’re helping to reenforce it, and they wouldn’t have succeeded without massive compromises, without supporting parties and policies that hurt women. Of course the anger is greater when women feel like they’re being betrayed by their own. It’s totally understandable, but considering the gender discrepancy is power and numbers in almost every institution does it ultimately sort of tend to distract from the larger problems a bit, is the question.
(Sorry if this double posts, computer problems)
-
Sameol says:
Oprah does do too much victim blaming and too much if I can pull myself up by my bootstraps so can you, but not to the level of Camille Paglia or IWF anything like that. I get the feeling she’s sincere, but she lapses back into bad patterns sometimes just because it’s what’s done in society. She’s also been through 42 different kinds of hell in her early life, so it’s not like she’s unaware of gender oppression. She built that girls’ school (which has many problems on many levels, but shows her intentions are good), she completely pissed of Ludacris and others by saying she won’t feature music that demeans women, a stand that is unheard of for anyone of her stature in the entertainment industry. And she’s one of the biggest philanthropists around.
If you mean she’s a traitor because of Obama, she wasn’t out beating up on Clinton and Palin with sexism (at least as I recall). She also, again as far as I remember wasn’t getting on a soapbox to declare that she could never, ever, no, ewww, not in a million years relate to those women who clearly are choosing to vote for women just because they’re women (well I never! The very idea!). So right there, if my memory’s correct, she’s about a million miles ahead of many Obama-supporting feminists.
