(June 16, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(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.

That's all true.  I said the poster is violent and I don't know if children should see the poster just because it's violent.  But I don't think it's much worse than the Simpsons when Homer chokes his son until his tongue shoots out of his mouth nearly every episode.  I watched it and it didn't bother me but I don't know if it's wrong.

My point is that this isn't discriminating against either sex.  It isn't saying all men are violent, this is just a violent man who is included in the film and that woman happened to be choked by him towards the end of the film, the poster isn't meant to represent all women or say that the violence is good.

Quote: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. 

-with the caption "only the strong will survive"...., or without, lol? Cause I'm pretty sure that's what the natzis (and maybe, the people who see sexism here...) were talkin bout the whole time.

(June 16, 2016 at 12:58 pm)paulpablo Wrote: That's all true.  I said the poster is violent and I don't know if children should see the poster just because it's violent.  But I don't think it's much worse than the Simpsons when Homer chokes his son until his tongue shoots out of his mouth nearly every episode.  I watched it and it didn't bother me but I don't know if it's wrong.

Leaving aside the obvious rebuttal- that the Simpsons has, on multiple occasions, pointed out that that action is indeed abusive and horrible- there's also a difference of depiction: one is an act of slapstick violence performed by cartoon characters, the other is a live-action, seriously framed piece of violence, that raises very real parallels to actual domestic abuse, performed against a female figure that, not to put too fine a point on it, is often overtly sexualized.

Does that make it worse? Yeah, kinda. I've seen the movie, I know how that scene works in context, but out of that context, as a piece of advertising for the film, there's an important question that needs to be asked: why is it that an image like this, with all the parallels that could be drawn, even if they aren't deliberately made, being positioned as a thing that will make people want to see the movie?

Quote:My point is that this isn't discriminating against either sex.  It isn't saying all men are violent, this is just a violent man who is included in the film and that woman happened to be choked by him towards the end of the film, the poster isn't meant to represent all women or say that the violence is good.

But we're not talking about discrimination. We're talking about representation and what this particular ad represents. What does it say that A: imagery associated with- even if not directly invoked- domestic violence can so easily appear on posters, and B: that this is the image chosen to entice people to see the movie? Now, there are arguments for either side of that, some I find compelling and some I don't, but what cannot be denied is that what appears in our media influences what is normalized in our culture, and that there's merit to questioning what this particular piece of media does in that context.

It's not a matter of the poster overtly suggesting that all men should be like that, or that women should be abused, or whatever, but of how the ubiquity of that imagery might bend the way people approach the subject matter. What happens to a culture that uncritically allows the shadow of violence against women, and specifically particular types of violence against women that are common in reality, to become so trivial that they appear on movie posters without even a sidelong glance?

If you're going to be making the case for considering the movie's context, then it's equally fair to consider the cultural one.

(June 15, 2016 at 4:43 pm)IanHulett Wrote: Apparently this:



is what counts as sexist these days.

"In our enthusiasm to show the villainy of the character Apocalypse we didn't immediately recognize the upsetting connotation of this image in print form," Fox said in a statement. "Once we realized how insensitive it was, we quickly took steps to remove those materials. We apologize for our actions and would never condone violence against women."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/entertainm...pologizes/

Yeah, because images depicting violence against men are acceptable, right? Nobody seems to care about that. Oh but those aren't >>>true<<< feminists... I forgot...

Fuck it. This is just sad. I'll pay anybody 3 billion dollars to build a rocket and get me off this planet. I'll colonize the universe by myself.

Look up women in fridges some day. Comic books have a long depressing history with respect to misogyny.

(June 16, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 16, 2016 at 12:58 pm)paulpablo Wrote: That's all true.  I said the poster is violent and I don't know if children should see the poster just because it's violent.  But I don't think it's much worse than the Simpsons when Homer chokes his son until his tongue shoots out of his mouth nearly every episode.  I watched it and it didn't bother me but I don't know if it's wrong.

Leaving aside the obvious rebuttal- that the Simpsons has, on multiple occasions, pointed out that that action is indeed abusive and horrible- there's also a difference of depiction: one is an act of slapstick violence performed by cartoon characters, the other is a live-action, seriously framed piece of violence, that raises very real parallels to actual domestic abuse,  performed against a female figure that, not to put too fine a point on it, is often overtly sexualized.

Does that make it worse? Yeah, kinda. I've seen the movie, I know how that scene works in context, but out of that context, as a piece of advertising for the film, there's an important question that needs to be asked: why is it that an image like this, with all the parallels that could be drawn, even if they aren't deliberately made, being positioned as a thing that will make people want to see the movie?

Quote:My point is that this isn't discriminating against either sex.  It isn't saying all men are violent, this is just a violent man who is included in the film and that woman happened to be choked by him towards the end of the film, the poster isn't meant to represent all women or say that the violence is good.

But we're not talking about discrimination. We're talking about representation and what this particular ad represents. What does it say that A: imagery associated with- even if not directly invoked- domestic violence can so easily appear on posters, and B: that this is the image chosen to entice people to see the movie? Now, there are arguments for either side of that, some I find compelling and some I don't, but what cannot be denied is that what appears in our media influences what is normalized in our culture, and that there's merit to questioning what this particular piece of media does in that context.

It's not a matter of the poster overtly suggesting that all men should be like that, or that women should be abused, or whatever, but of how the ubiquity of that imagery might bend the way people approach the subject matter. What happens to a culture that uncritically allows the shadow of violence against women, and specifically particular types of violence against women that are common in reality, to become so trivial that they appear on movie posters without even a sidelong glance?

If you're going to be making the case for considering the movie's context, then it's equally fair to consider the cultural one.

1) I am talking about discrimination because I'm addressing whether or not the poster is sexist.
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.


In my opinion the poster does none of these things.  The poster is just a depiction of what happens in the film.  And if you want to go further and address what's in the film then anyone who's seen it will realize there's way more violence against men than women.

2) In regards to the poster normalizing violence in culture I already agreed the poster is violent.

3) In regards to the Simpsons being comedy and slapstick I think it's worse to make domestic violence against your own children to look funny and comedic.  And also to have Homer Simpson as a character who's always portrayed as a jovial, good family guy who just happens to be an alcoholic who chokes his son.

This in comparison to the X men film where the character choking the woman is clearly portrayed as a psychopathic mutant who believes he is a god and wants to kill everyone. There can be no doubt that he's the bad guy.

(June 16, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote: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. 

-with the caption "only the strong will survive"...., or without, lol?  Cause I'm pretty sure that's what the natzis (and maybe, the people who see sexism here...) were talkin bout the whole time.

The whole film is pretty much very connected with genocidal plots and with parallels to the Nazis.

My interpretation of Magneto is that he's basically become the person who he hates the most.  His family were taken away by Nazis who believed he and his family were inferior for being Jewish.  Now he has power and he becomes someone who repeatedly shows willingness to kill normal humans who he believes to be weaker. And he joins Apocalypse who is very much the same.

Some women get turned on by that kinda thing don'cha know.

(June 16, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

Some women get turned on by that kinda thing don'cha know.

Yrs, but that is consent not abuse.

(June 16, 2016 at 2:19 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(June 16, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -with the caption "only the strong will survive"...., or without, lol?  Cause I'm pretty sure that's what the natzis (and maybe, the people who see sexism here...) were talkin bout the whole time.

The whole film is pretty much very connected with genocidal plots and with parallels to the Nazis.

My interpretation of Magneto is that he's basically become the person who he hates the most.  His family were taken away by Nazis who believed he and his family were inferior for being Jewish.  Now he has power and he becomes someone who repeatedly shows willingness to kill normal humans who he believes to be weaker. And he joins Apocalypse who is very much the same.

That's a wonderful plot synopsis, but it's still a naked female in an inviting pose being one armed by Johnny Gorilla, because she's a weakling...and trust me someone's beating their meat to it right about nyow..and not for the plot. It hit's all the buttons of the demographic to which the movie is marketed, all the wrong ones.....,.lol.

(June 16, 2016 at 3:11 pm)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 16, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

Some women get turned on by that kinda thing don'cha know.

Yrs, but that is consent not abuse.

I think it's technically both.