case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2009-02-25 05:17 pm

[ SECRET POST #782 ]


⌈ Secret Post #782 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

101.


__________________________________________________



102.


__________________________________________________



103.


__________________________________________________



104.


__________________________________________________



105.


__________________________________________________



106.


__________________________________________________



107.


__________________________________________________



108.


__________________________________________________



109.


__________________________________________________



110. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



111. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



112.


__________________________________________________



113.


__________________________________________________



114.


__________________________________________________



115.


__________________________________________________



116.


__________________________________________________



117.


__________________________________________________



118.


__________________________________________________



119.


__________________________________________________



120.


__________________________________________________



121.


__________________________________________________



122.


__________________________________________________



123.


__________________________________________________



124.


__________________________________________________



125. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



126.


__________________________________________________



127.


__________________________________________________



128.


__________________________________________________



129.


__________________________________________________



130.


__________________________________________________



131.


__________________________________________________



132.


__________________________________________________



133.


__________________________________________________



134.


__________________________________________________



135.


__________________________________________________



136.


__________________________________________________



137.


__________________________________________________



138.


__________________________________________________



139.


__________________________________________________



140.


__________________________________________________



141.


__________________________________________________



142.


__________________________________________________



143.


__________________________________________________



144.


__________________________________________________



145.


__________________________________________________



146.


__________________________________________________



147.


__________________________________________________



148.


__________________________________________________



149.


__________________________________________________



150.


__________________________________________________



151.


__________________________________________________



152.


__________________________________________________



153.


__________________________________________________



154.


__________________________________________________



155.


__________________________________________________



156.


__________________________________________________



157.


__________________________________________________



158.


__________________________________________________



159.


__________________________________________________



160.


__________________________________________________



161.


__________________________________________________



162.


__________________________________________________



163.


__________________________________________________



164.


__________________________________________________



165.


__________________________________________________



166.


__________________________________________________



167.


__________________________________________________



168.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 165 secrets from Secret Submission Post #112.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 2 3 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: 101

[identity profile] ember-reignited.livejournal.com 2009-02-25 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm fairly sure The Incredibles passes the Beschel test. Helen and Edna end up talking about the hubby, sure, but they discuss other things as well. And Helen and Violet have some brief mother-daughter exchanges.

And, no, it isn't a coincidence. But it isn't a case of OMG PIXAR HATES WOMEN either. It's an unfortunate consequence of the sort of society we live in. Pixar's written woefully few female characters, true, but the ones they have written are pretty damn awesome, which puts them ahead of plenty of other media outlets. Give them some credit.

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-25 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I do give them some credit (I really do think Dory is decent...), but a lot of Pixar fans act like Pixar is untouched by misogyny or something and get super defensive.

If Pixar really was completely unbiased between males and females, we wouldn't be seeing consistently male led and dominated movies. That's the point I was trying to make.

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-25 11:44 pm (UTC)(link)
But sexist and misogynist aren't the same thing. I see lots of evidence of sexism (perpetuating the societal disadvantage of women) but outright misogyny (hatred of / contempt for women) is pretty rare in Pixar. It's not surprising fans get defensive if you're accusing Pixar of the latter, when you really mean the former.

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-26 12:27 am (UTC)(link)
I don't see how a continued failure to even bother to include more than a handful of women in any of their universes could *not* stem from a place of contempt. What's the driving force behind it if not a belief that women are inferior and less worthy than men?

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-26 01:13 am (UTC)(link)
That the vast majority of people in senior positions involved in the making of these films are men, and they make films based on their interests? It's not a question of contempt, it just doesn't occur to them to include more than a handful of women, because it's not their experiences and stories they want (or are able) to tell.

It's sexist because it's perpetuating the societal mores that value women's stories less highly than men's, but you need more evidence than just your own personal assumptions to allege misogyny, without sounding like the kind of manhating batshit feminist that makes the rest of us look bad. Where's the contempt in the portrayal of these women?

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-26 01:24 am (UTC)(link)
Not the same anon, but I think your argument basically amounts to splitting hair here. There's a lot of overlapping when it comes to the ways sexism and misogyny manifest themselves; what matters is how they affect the world. When it comes down to it, the situation you pointed out with the majority of film makers being men who don't prioritize female characters simply because such characters lie outside their personal interests, that right there is a problem. That a) there are not more women in these executive positions and that b) the people in these positions do not see fit to promote egalitarianism even though they should given that their products are marketed as providing role models for children? These are problems, and they deserve much more attention than worries of how feminists are being perceived.

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-26 02:29 am (UTC)(link)
Oh I agree it's a problem, but ranting about misogyny like the previous anon when it's just sexism, doesn't actually get you anywhere, and probably makes things worse. Attacking Pixar as misogynist (hating women) immediately puts people on the defensive, and they end up pointing to how awesome their female characters are, which they wouldn't be if Pixar hated women. It's only when you get 3 or 4 layers down in the argument that the quantity of female representation as well as the quality of the female representation gets discussed, when that's actually the main problem.

On the other hand, if you make it a question of male privilege, you're not saying it's something that they are doing deliberately, but they are benefitting from the male domination of society, and the stories they tell are unintentionally perpetuating that culture of male domination. If they believe in equality, it's then a question of making a conscious effort to improve the situation rather than unconsciously supporting the status quo. Generally I find people respond better if they're given the benefit of the doubt for their inadequacies and shown ways that they can improve, rather than feel like they're being judged for their failings.

Re: 101

[identity profile] gethenian.livejournal.com 2009-02-26 09:12 am (UTC)(link)
Okay, I have to ask now. I HAVE TO:

Do you really consider every artist, author, film producer, other entertainment providor to be mysogenyst if they don't make stories with female leads?

Because seriously -- that's kind of idiotic.

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-26 10:03 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't know what "mysogenyst" is...but if any mainstream studio discriminates against women in terms of quality or quantity of roles, of course it is misogynist.

And yes, that includes refusing to make stories with female leads. Females are half the population and half the kids that Pixar markets to. There is no logical reason to exclude them, outside of misogyny. Pixar goes a step further and usually includes only one or two females in it's supporting cast, which is just sad in this day and age.

Re: 101

[identity profile] gethenian.livejournal.com 2009-02-26 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Or maybe people just aren't selling them decent scripts that have female leads.

Re: 101

(Anonymous) 2009-02-25 11:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Saying it's a consequence of society is the same thing as saying there's evidence of misogyny in Pixar's works, when that consequence is, in fact, misogyny. Anyway, I'm inclined to think that by having a precious few female characters per flick actually makes it easier to focus resources into writing them well. They get credit for producing what few good female characters there are, but that doesn't mean the burden isn't still on them to balance out their casts more. No harm in being too progressive (unless you worry about box office performances). Everyone already thinks Pixar is the bee's knee, why not push them to be even better than they already are?

Re: 101

[identity profile] ember-reignited.livejournal.com 2009-02-25 11:27 pm (UTC)(link)
True. All very good points.