Support NeoGAF

[frequency]

Well what do you know, a site has responded to Ebert's article



http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/roger-ebert-is-better-than-women/

Maybe I'm just misreading, but...
Are men really portrayed as inferior to women in entertainment? Are they really told that they're "worthless"? Maybe I'm just biased, but I feel it's women who are portrayed as inferior and told they're worthless (unless they can be sexualized - then they're useful... to men).

Men are always heroes in movies while women are generally just there to be a love interest and as someone to save from all that trouble she gets herself into.

 

[Callo Merlose]

Men are better at being bitches. See: this thread.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Maybe I'm just misreading, but...
Are men really portrayed as inferior to women in entertainment? Are they really told that they're "worthless"? Maybe I'm just biased, but I feel it's women who are portrayed as inferior and told they're worthless (unless they can be sexualized - then they're useful... to men).

Men are always heroes in movies while women are generally just there to be a love interest and as someone to save from all that trouble she gets herself into.

Have you not seen a commercial lately? Or a sitcom? Men are almost always portrayed as being ignorant and look to their wives for answers and help. You can youtube this sort of thing.

 

[frequency]

Have you not seen a commercial lately? Or a sitcom? Men are almost always portrayed as being ignorant and look to their wives for answers and help. You can youtube this sort of thing.

No, I watch very little television. I can really only think of commercials telling me how I'm not pretty enough and have to use product X, Y, and Z so I can look presentable.

I was thinking more about movies (which is where Ebert's expertise is?). But maybe I'm wrong. And biases and stuff.

Joke characters are 99% men.

But aren't joke characters funny? Being funny is pretty valuable. I feel that women in entertainment, for the most part, serve no purpose other than to prop up a man. But I don't know. I'm wrong I guess.

 

[Finaika]

Maybe I'm just misreading, but...
Are men really portrayed as inferior to women in entertainment? Are they really told that they're "worthless"? Maybe I'm just biased, but I feel it's women who are portrayed as inferior and told they're worthless (unless they can be sexualized - then they're useful... to men).

Men are always heroes in movies while women are generally just there to be a love interest and as someone to save from all that trouble she gets herself into.

Joke characters are 99% men.

 

[The Technomancer]

No, I watch very little television. I can really only think of commercials telling me how I'm not pretty enough and have to use product X, Y, and Z so I can look presentable.

I was thinking more about movies (which is where Ebert's expertise is?). But maybe I'm wrong. And biases and stuff.

Men are depicted as strong and capable in a crisis and utterly socially retarded (yes, I used that word) in almost any other context.

Also don't be so quick to self-deprecate your opinions

EDIT: Okay, I shouldn't say everywhere else. Sometimes its a Rom-Com, in which case both parties are insipidly dumb.

 

[frequency]

Men are depicted as strong and capable in a crisis and utterly socially retarded (yes, I used that word) in almost any other context.

Hmmmm. Aren't there significantly more strong men than women though? Women rarely ever have any meaningful roles in movies.

Also don't be so quick to self-deprecate your opinions

Sorry. I will try.

EDIT: Okay, I shouldn't say everywhere else. Sometimes its a Rom-Com, in which case both parties are insipidly dumb.

Aren't a lot of romantic comedies about some fairly character-less "trophy" woman and a lovable man trying to "win" her? And we usually follow the silly comedic adventures of the man trying to get the woman.

 

[Zoe]

Aren't a lot of romantic comedies about some fairly character-less "trophy" woman and a lovable man trying to "win" her? And we usually follow the silly comedic adventures of the man trying to get the woman.

No... Rom-Coms are typically from the woman's perspective.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

"Fine, I'll iron my own shirts!

Oh no I burned a hole right through! Honey I'm sorry!"

 

[Deified Data]

Devolution is banned, so I wonder how this thread will turn out without her.

Devo ban mention #139,374.

I don't think men and women are all that different. Not different enough to say one is "better" than the other, but then again this is just Ebert whoring for attention. Pay him no heed.

 

[frequency]

No... Rom-Coms are typically from the woman's perspective.

Maybe I just don't watch enough of romantic comedies.



But is it wrong to say that the majority of movies has a capable man as the lead? And the lead woman character is really just there to support the man or to give him a reason to do what he's doing? It seems the woman usually never really has any purpose of her own. It's all towards making the man more of a character and the woman is usually just one-note and throwaway.

Isn't it common that women are generally portrayed as weaker and less capable overall? Like if I was to ask you to list men in entertainment who are strong and some characteristics of the man, and then list women in entertainment who are strong and their characteristics, wouldn't the man list be significantly fuller?

 

[kittens]

Women are nicer than men because men are constantly socialized to be detached, anti-social, emotioneless, self-alienating. This is a product of patriarchy, not some inherent or genetic difference. Ebert is completely missing the mark by ignoring patriarchy.

I recommend bell hooks' book The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. It's a great primer to understanding the qualities and effects of patriarchal masculinity, and provides pretty nice visions / examples of feminist masculinity.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

A lot of the male behaviors Ebert criticizes aren't intrinsically male, but rather products of socialization. And a lot of the generalizations he makes seem rooted in sexist assumptions about the "natures" of men and women. Maybe the point he didn't realize he was looking for is that men's patriarchal gender roles have had many ill effects in societies past and present.

IS it sexist to assume that there might be an intrinsic difference in the natures of men and women? I don't think so. While specific realizations of gender differentiation vary from culture-to-culture, pretty much every culture with which I'm familiar has some form of acknowledgment of the differing behaviors of men and women, the same general patterns recognized. Now, not every culture has used this as an excuse to SUBJUGATE women, mind, but I think that several of the things Ebert identifies in his post with regard to the emotional differences between the genders are just that - innate differences that will recapitulate themselves over time.

 

[KingJ2002]

This is specific to men, why?

This post is perfect

 

[The Anti-Monitor]

Men are more often portrayed as clumsy, but they are also almost exclusively the heroes, the most successful and the most important.

 

[Akainu]

No, you're all wrong you prick.

Women are nicer than men because men are constantly socialized to be detached, anti-social, emotioneless, self-alienating. This is a product of patriarchy, not some inherent or genetic difference. Ebert is completely missing the mark by ignoring patriarchy.

You seem to love throwing around the word patriarchy.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

 

[rvy]

Yes, these are generalizations. I am more right than wrong.

lol, no. Sorry.

 

[klausbert]

This occurred to me while watching a forthcoming movie named "Where Do We Go Now?" It could have occurred during dozens or hundreds of movies.

Stopped reading there.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Women being nicer and more generous are not traits that are going to benefit them in a climb to the top.

 

[Mumei]

Women are nicer than men because men are constantly socialized to be detached, anti-social, emotioneless, self-alienating. This is a product of patriarchy, not some inherent or genetic difference. Ebert is completely missing the mark by ignoring patriarchy.

I recommend bell hooks' book The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. It's a great primer to understanding the qualities and effects of patriarchal masculinity, and provides pretty nice visions / examples of feminist masculinity.

I miss "omg.kittens".

And since I am at the library, I've gone ahead and picked up that book. I quite enjoyed the first bell hooks book I read.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Talking about the good qualities specific to men is "sexist" and "misogyny". Then talking about the good qualities specific to women is what? Just the truth? Why isn't it in the same category? Right- female chauvinism, not limited to Ebert by any means, by which it's almost never acceptable to discuss anything positive about men specifically. Not only that, but to then arrive at the conclusion that one gender is superior by virtue of eliminating the discussion.

It's high time intellectual men in Western society developed some form of self-respect and self-worth and didn't wallow in submissive worship of the feminine. Of course it is appropriate for women to develop their will to power. That doesn't mean men shouldn't retain theirs also. Female privilege isn't better for men than male privilege, it's not their salvation, it's not enlightened and it's not progressive. Feminism was never about equality for it's own sake and it was never about your needs and desires as a man. It was, and is, about female power.

The answer to manhood is not being remade in the image of woman.

 

[Inanna]

No... Rom-Coms are typically from the woman's perspective.

I think I can name at least 10 rom-coms off the top of my head that were from male's perspective. Granted I don't really know the full story because I always get bored of them and change the channel.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Talking about the good qualities specific to men is "sexist" and "misogyny". Then talking about the good qualities specific to women is what? Just the truth? Why isn't it in the same category? Right- female chauvinism, not limited to Ebert by any means, by which it's almost never acceptable to discuss anything positive about men specifically. Not only that, but to then arrive at the conclusion that one gender is superior by virtue of eliminating the discussion.

It's high time intellectual men in Western society developed some form of self-respect and self-worth and didn't wallow in submissive worship of the feminine. Of course it is appropriate for women to develop their will to power. That doesn't mean men shouldn't retain theirs also. Female privilege isn't better for men than male privilege, it's not their salvation, it's not enlightened and it's not progressive. Feminism was never about equality for it's own sake and it was never about your needs and desires as a man. It was, and is, about female power.

The answer to manhood is not being remade in the image of woman.

I agree completely except I would say that feminism is about the advancement of women regardless of how it affects men.

 

[Trent Strong]

A lot of the male behaviors Ebert criticizes aren't intrinsically male, but rather products of socialization. And a lot of the generalizations he makes seem rooted in sexist assumptions about the "natures" of men and women. Maybe the point he didn't realize he was looking for is that men's patriarchal gender roles have had many ill effects in societies past and present.

Women are nicer than men because men are constantly socialized to be detached, anti-social, emotioneless, self-alienating. This is a product of patriarchy, not some inherent or genetic difference. Ebert is completely missing the mark by ignoring patriarchy.

I recommend bell hooks' book The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. It's a great primer to understanding the qualities and effects of patriarchal masculinity, and provides pretty nice visions / examples of feminist masculinity.

Ebert acknowledges that a lot of these differences are due to socialization and the effects of patriarchal societies. It's in the OP. But it's obvious that a lot of these differences are innate and biological. Why would humans be the only animals on the planet who's behavior doesn't have any biological basis and has in no way been effected by evolution?

 

[RawkHawk2010]

Iron Man's girlfriend/wife/whatever she was pretty much finished off the final boss in the Iron Man movie.

I'd say that counts for something.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Ebert acknowledges that a lot of these differences are due to socialization and the effects of patriarchal societies. It's in the OP. But it's obvious that a lot of these differences are innate and biological. Why would humans be the only animals on the planet who's behavior doesn't have any biological basis and has in no way been effected by evolution?

No one's saying there is no biological basis to human behavior.