It's not just the image, it's the image combined with the message.

If he was chocking a man it would still be violence just not sexist violence.

If he was choking the woman without the words of an abusive domestic dominator it would still be violence but it would not allude to validation of domestic violence.

If people are trying to get their morality from movie posters, we have bigger problems

(June 16, 2016 at 12:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: If people are trying to get their morality from movie posters, we have bigger problems

People are influenced by advertising, that's just a fact.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: If people are trying to get their morality from movie posters, we have bigger problems

True, but by the same token, pop culture is what informs cultural norms. What you see on a movie poster shouldn't be the sole determiner of your morality, but it does become a component of the social mien you're surrounded by, which influences the way you deal with the world around you. We already accept that advertising can do that, it's why we place restrictions on cigarette ads, for example.

You are of course correct. It's just rather sad to think of people being so easily influenced, even by fiction.

(June 15, 2016 at 5:24 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 15, 2016 at 4:58 pm)Losty Wrote: Really? It's a man choking a woman

It's not exactly a man choking a woman but a male something choking a female something, which, according to the X Men picture I had the displeasure of watching on tv, is perfectly capable to put on a good fight.

It as actually a man. He's a mutant human.  The mutants are still men.  Hence the film title X men.  He isn't one of the X men but he is essentially a mutant man. And the woman is one of the X men, and still a woman.

The poster is 100% not sexist.  It's a scene from the film. It's a depiction of violence that isn't really that extreme.  If the violent image is wrong or not is subjective.  It's no worse than when Homer strangles his son in the Simpsons.

In the actual film itself, from what I can remember, the violence towards men exceeds the violence towards women by far.  Especially with violent detail.  For instance there aren't many scenes of a man brutally punching a woman but there are several of women punching men and knocking them out.

Things not in the frame don't excuse things -in-..the frame.  Cmon, not even a little sexist, doesn't even play into familiar sexist tropes...accidentally?

Look, it made me giggle and it made my wife want to take it to the mattress (and not in the mafia way)....and that's a reliable indicator of sexism..we have similar interests, lol. I don't think anybody intended it to be that way, and cmon..how could they have known.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Things not in the frame don't excuse things -in-..the frame.  Cmon, not even a little sexist?

I can see the argument for it being sexist with no context, or a different context surrounding the situation.

If it was an advertisement for Levis and the guy was stood there in jeans choking a woman like that, then yes I'd say it's promoting violence against women as a good thing, and pretty much sexist.

But this is a film poster.  The scene is directly out of the film.  I could be offended as a man and say "This poster is portraying my gender as being violent, uncaring and evil, I'm so offended."

But as I say, it's just a scene from the movie and that's all I can ever see it as.

If there's a film about Jews being killed by Hitler and you see a concentration camp on the film poster, that hopefully isn't encouraging people to try and start their own genocide.  It's simply what happened in the film.

If the poster is being taken down because the person being choked in the scene is a woman and not because of the violent act itself then that is sexist.

Because if you're saying it's Ok for a man to be a victim of violence on a poster at the hands of a man but not a woman then that's not equality.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:25 pm)paulpablo Wrote: The poster is 100% not sexist.  It's a scene from the film. It's a depiction of violence that isn't really that extreme.

That depends on the person viewing it. It's a PG-13 movie - if you choose to go see it, you may be expecting violence and you probably know who the characters are. But this is A POSTER, visible to everybody, including children, or people who do not care to watch violence, especially against women. For a 6-year-old this is pretty extreme violence. Especially, if the child has experienced domestic violence.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:25 pm)paulpablo Wrote: In the actual film itself, from what I can remember, the violence towards men exceeds the violence towards women by far.[...]

Who cares about the film? Nobody's criticizing the film (well - it has rating of 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, but that's to be expected - it's another sh*tty comic book cash-in). But the promotional material shouldn't include controversial images and slogans. Why is this so difficult to understand? This is NOT political speech - it's just some corporation, trying to make money.