Great... now movie posters are sexist?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not sexist because it's one person with power over another regardless of gender. Gender is irrelevant here. That's the whole point. You can change the genders, the races, the sexuality, it makes no difference.

The stronger person is going to be the one doing the choking in this picture. If the female had been the stronger one the same would apply. It's a sexist stereotype to assume all men are stronger but no such assumption is evidenced by the picture. To assume it is would be similar to assuming any violence depicted from a racial majority to a racial minority is racist. When of course it isn't. Either it's acceptable for all or acceptable for none. Affirmative action for both gender and racial minorities is ironically sexist and racist respectively, despite good intentions.

Egalitarianism is the only way to go.

[thesummerqueen]

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.

But isn't it our social norm that tells us the guy in the poster is bad? And that he's a bad guy? One look at this poster, and I know who the villian is.

There are plenty of other ways to portray a villain without choking a woman.

[Jackalope]

It needed pointing out to me but look at how the faces are lit. The man's is lit straight on to show that he is facing the horror whereas the woman is lit from down below to make her look more terrified and more like a victim.

I dunno, my impression was that the woman was about to go medieval on something and the guy is looking like he's going to turn and bolt.

I suppose one can see whatever one wants to see if one looks hard enough, or has an agenda.

[paulpablo]

Maybe it requires you having been a female in a relationship where the power dynamic was fucked and someone choked or otherwise abused you or, hey, I don't know, tried to throw you off something (weren't they on a building in that scene? I haven't seen the movie yet - in my case, it was a flight of stairs) before you realize why it can be construed as sexist. Because you know, there was literally no way they couldn't take particular photos to advertise the movie, or choose a different movie still to show the struggle, or something. Nope, they specifically chose Jlaw getting choked by a meathead.

You don't understand why it's sexist? It's great that you're admitting it. The problem is you probably didn't bother to listen to why, except to gather hyperbolic or hysterical statements in order to continue building a strawman of feminism instead of, I don't know, listening to those of us who have been through domestic or child abuse.

Don't get me wrong - I love a little breath play in my scenes, but that's always been consensual. I wish I could say that grabbing a woman by a vulnerable part of her body has always been consensual in my life, or my sister's or mother's.

No they were at ground level on that scene, it was around the time he pushed quicksilver into the ground.

My point is that abusive relationships, violence against women or abuse against women isn't sexist unless it's on the basis of their gender.

Since this person is a mutant who wants to destroy all of humanity and every mutant who stands in his way it's clear he's not just choking her because she's female.

That's why I think the poster isn't sexist, because to me it makes no sense to view the poster as being independent from the film itself.

I can understand why someone might think it's sexist. Someone might think she's on the poster being victimised just because she's a woman. But you'd have to know what the advertisers were thinking to know why they chose that image and not a man fighting a man instead to know if it's sexist or not. I don't think they used that image because she's a woman but because she's a main hero and that is a pivotal scene in the film.
Also that's another big deal for me. Is that it was the scene in the film. Say if they made a different film about a sexist, abusive husband and the advertisement was of him slapping his wife in the face with a belt.
I would say the advert is inappropriate for public viewing but the advert in itself is not sexist. It's portraying a scene in a film of a sexist man. The poster is just showing you what's there. Same as in the X men film, it's showing what is there.

[Cecelia]

People really don't see how this could be interpreted as sexist?

I mean if this were Storm in a noose, you wouldn't think it was racist?  Let's say in the context of the movie he wasn't doing it because she was black.  I mean I'm sure in the movie itself the scene isn't sexist.  But a movie poster cannot portray the context.  This one certainly doesn't, and is in my opinion in poor taste.

[Little lunch]

Little kids can see that billboard.
So when your kid asks why that man is choking that woman, you tell them that it's ok in this instance because she's really a mutant and he's from the olden days and.....isn't it hard enough having to explain to them why there's a man hanging on a cross all over the place.

[paulpablo]

People really don't see how this could be interpreted as sexist?

I mean if this were Storm in a noose, you wouldn't think it was racist?  Let's say in the context of the movie he wasn't doing it because she was black.  I mean I'm sure in the movie itself the scene isn't sexist.  But a movie poster cannot portray the context.  This one certainly doesn't, and is in my opinion in poor taste.

I can understand why people might interpret it as being sexist which is what I said. But I'm saying I don't see the poster as being sexist.
If the poster was of storm in a noose and the film is about storm in a noose then I wouldn't think the poster is racist, just a very insensitive choice of public advertisement.
Not to mention how confused id be at a higher level mutant like storm being hung by a noose even when she has the power of flight and could rip the tree from its roots using lightening or hurricane powers.
I agree with the premise that the poster is possibly too violent for public viewing but I think it's sexist to only be offended by this poster because the victim of violence happens to be a woman. That's placing women at a higher level of value than men.

[paulpablo]

Little kids can see that billboard.
So when your kid asks why that man is choking that woman, you tell them that it's ok in this instance because she's really a mutant and he's from the olden days and.....isn't it hard enough having to explain to them why there's a man hanging on a cross all over the place.

Well I've said about a million times now but I'll repeat again. I'm not saying it's ok for this advert to be displayed publicly and I do think it's violent.
If my daughter asked why the man is choking the woman I'd tell her the man in the story is evil and it's not ok to do that to people.

[Regina]

I don't want to dismiss this as "not sexist" because if people see sexism in it, they have the right to see it, but this is one of those situations where I'm bothered by the selective outrage.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a fan of that billboard flying in public primarily because it's violent regardless and children are going to walk past it, that it's a woman on the receiving end is a secondary factor. There are probably people who literally only noticed this billboard and whined about it specifically because it was a woman he was choking. Personally I find that sad if I'm being honest, that we're so desensitised to violence that we can probably overlook our children seeing a man choking another man, but suddenly make it a woman and it's "oh fuck NO! Sexism!"

It's the same mentality as people who take issue with video games, where a male (or female) protagonist can kill 500 men, but then kills one woman and everyone loses their shit over it.

That's sad, I'm sorry.

*exits Pool mode*

[robvalue]

Because billboards are outside, and children go outside sometimes, I would argue that it's probably never a good idea to put anyone being choked on a billboard.

I agree! This gets to the heart of the matter. It's not suitable content for everyone to see.

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.

But isn't it our social norm that tells us the guy in the poster is bad? And that he's a bad guy? One look at this poster, and I know who the villian is.

Yeah, that's it. And if this is so blatantly sexist, then people will write it off as such. And of course, we think that's the evil dude and he shouldn't be doing it. We don't think that if that blue monster is choking someone maybe we best go choke people too. Anyone set off that easily is obviously unstable.

So in conclusion, I don't think this is sexist, I think it's inappropriate. Films and entertainment are not meant to be educational. If parents aren't working with their kids to help teach them how to deal with the world and not copy every damn thing they say, we're screwed anyway. You could go through every scene of everything ever and shout "that's sexist!", "that's racist!".

As has been pointed out, you could just as easily say it's sexist against men for displaying them as violent. But these aren't even humans FFS. What kind of loonies are we talking about, once we've discounted children?