Death to Dufus
So I read this article about the unfortunate Smurfetting of Black Widow in Avengers. Basically, the author says Avengers fails the Bechdel test and she wishes it hadn't.
In the comments, I've been talking to a fan of the film who opines that it is not sexist for the film to have so few women and to not have any of the women talk to each other. OK. One might possibly argue that. But how do they argue that? Let's see.
What is their defence of the film not letting two women talk to each other? Well, the director "didn't have infinite time on his hands," you see.
Translation for those of you who don't speak misogynese: INFINITE time is what you need to have before you will dedicate ANY time AT ALL to mere women.
It does not help to point out that a fair time distribution would result in an equal amount of time for women's conversations and men's conversations, no matter how much or how little time was actually dedicated to conversation in the film. Dufus insists that for there to be conversation between two women, the film would have to be of infinite length.
Translation: it does not even occur to Dufus that one might cut down on the men's conversations in order to make time for women's. Words fail.
They go on to claim that it's not reasonable to expect the filmmakers to change the plot for PC reasons. According to this person, eschewing PC corrections of original plots does not reflect sexism.
Well, fool, if the original plot underrepresents women, then YES, fool, it is sexist not to change it. You see, if something is sexist to begin with, then lo and behold, as long as you don't change it, IT REMAINS SEXIST. And underrepresentation of women is sexist. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you, you incredibly obtuse asshat.
They then imply that I am sexist for objecting to the general disappearing of half the world's population in cinema. They argue - and I really want to savour this bit - that I shouldn't need a character to be my own gender before I can sympathise with said character. They specifically would like to point out that I ought to like Superman even though I don't share his gender.
In other words, when I address the statistical fact of systematic underrepresentation of women in mainstream cinema, Shitstain-for-Brains replies with an observation about one individual male character and accuses me of being biased against him! Derail much? It is not the individual male character that is the problem, you bumbling blockhead! It is the FACT that the female-to-male ratio is massively unbalanced, thus disregarding the FACT that women comprise half the world's population and making it seem that the default person is male. What don't you understaaaaaaaaaaaaand????
This is a person who considers themself non-sexist.
Lesson: misogynists are strikingly unintelligent, disingenuous and incapable of coherent, let alone critical thought. When will I learn not to engage in fruitless discussions with them? What I need to do is just kill them.
So this one goes out to that harebrained asshole on that particular thread, as well as every other sadsack misogynist out there who is too astoundingly stupid to even realise that they ARE a misogynist:
For the last time, all you unbefuckinglievable dingbats: no one said [insert title of film in question] should be banned. No one even said it was a bad film. A feminist writer pointed out that it could have been better than it was, if it had also passed the Bechdel test. And in sweep the apologists, the illogical double-speak hypocrites, and the patriarchy-deniers.
It is a problematic aspect of Avengers that Black Widow is effectively its Smurfette. YES, IT IS! Just as the underrepresentation of women is a problematic aspect of the film industry on the whole.
Is it a total deal breaker in regard to this specific film? Not necessarily, no. Are we allowed to mention the problem nevertheless? YES, WE FUCKING ARE.
Are there other films out there that are worse at representing women? Yes, there fucking well are, and we're talking tens of thousands of them. Are we allowed to mention the problems in this particular film nevertheless? YES, WE FUCKING ARE.
Does the film have other weaknesses that are more glaring than the underrepresentation of women in it? Quite possibly! Are we allowed to mention the underrepresentation of women nevertheless? YES, WE FUCKING ARE.
Now go die in a fire, you filthy motherfucking knuckledragging numbskulls. SO sick of you. If I could banish all of you to a world where all gender representation in popular culture is reversed, I would die a happy feminist. Now I guess I'll have to settle for flaying you alive.
In the comments, I've been talking to a fan of the film who opines that it is not sexist for the film to have so few women and to not have any of the women talk to each other. OK. One might possibly argue that. But how do they argue that? Let's see.
What is their defence of the film not letting two women talk to each other? Well, the director "didn't have infinite time on his hands," you see.
Translation for those of you who don't speak misogynese: INFINITE time is what you need to have before you will dedicate ANY time AT ALL to mere women.
It does not help to point out that a fair time distribution would result in an equal amount of time for women's conversations and men's conversations, no matter how much or how little time was actually dedicated to conversation in the film. Dufus insists that for there to be conversation between two women, the film would have to be of infinite length.
Translation: it does not even occur to Dufus that one might cut down on the men's conversations in order to make time for women's. Words fail.
They go on to claim that it's not reasonable to expect the filmmakers to change the plot for PC reasons. According to this person, eschewing PC corrections of original plots does not reflect sexism.
Well, fool, if the original plot underrepresents women, then YES, fool, it is sexist not to change it. You see, if something is sexist to begin with, then lo and behold, as long as you don't change it, IT REMAINS SEXIST. And underrepresentation of women is sexist. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you, you incredibly obtuse asshat.
They then imply that I am sexist for objecting to the general disappearing of half the world's population in cinema. They argue - and I really want to savour this bit - that I shouldn't need a character to be my own gender before I can sympathise with said character. They specifically would like to point out that I ought to like Superman even though I don't share his gender.
In other words, when I address the statistical fact of systematic underrepresentation of women in mainstream cinema, Shitstain-for-Brains replies with an observation about one individual male character and accuses me of being biased against him! Derail much? It is not the individual male character that is the problem, you bumbling blockhead! It is the FACT that the female-to-male ratio is massively unbalanced, thus disregarding the FACT that women comprise half the world's population and making it seem that the default person is male. What don't you understaaaaaaaaaaaaand????
This is a person who considers themself non-sexist.
Lesson: misogynists are strikingly unintelligent, disingenuous and incapable of coherent, let alone critical thought. When will I learn not to engage in fruitless discussions with them? What I need to do is just kill them.
So this one goes out to that harebrained asshole on that particular thread, as well as every other sadsack misogynist out there who is too astoundingly stupid to even realise that they ARE a misogynist:
For the last time, all you unbefuckinglievable dingbats: no one said [insert title of film in question] should be banned. No one even said it was a bad film. A feminist writer pointed out that it could have been better than it was, if it had also passed the Bechdel test. And in sweep the apologists, the illogical double-speak hypocrites, and the patriarchy-deniers.
It is a problematic aspect of Avengers that Black Widow is effectively its Smurfette. YES, IT IS! Just as the underrepresentation of women is a problematic aspect of the film industry on the whole.
Is it a total deal breaker in regard to this specific film? Not necessarily, no. Are we allowed to mention the problem nevertheless? YES, WE FUCKING ARE.
Are there other films out there that are worse at representing women? Yes, there fucking well are, and we're talking tens of thousands of them. Are we allowed to mention the problems in this particular film nevertheless? YES, WE FUCKING ARE.
Does the film have other weaknesses that are more glaring than the underrepresentation of women in it? Quite possibly! Are we allowed to mention the underrepresentation of women nevertheless? YES, WE FUCKING ARE.
Now go die in a fire, you filthy motherfucking knuckledragging numbskulls. SO sick of you. If I could banish all of you to a world where all gender representation in popular culture is reversed, I would die a happy feminist. Now I guess I'll have to settle for flaying you alive.