Um, wait, so violence in the movies is bad because it makes viewers violent?

Haven't we had this conversation already?

This game was set up by patriarchy, and now women are playing the game the patriarchy doesn't like it. There is hypocracy in this article at so many levels.

These films are dangerous. They cause children to want to pursue such dreams as becoming a superhero. If every child grows up to be a superhero then who's going to be left do deliver the post and do office work?

We must suppress our children's ambitions.

Dunno, but this film is much more fun than the portentous trailer suggests.

I shall make a film about a woman who refuses to shave her underarm hair and rises to board level in a large company.

It's only a movie!

After seeing that picture, all I can hear is "they're all gonna laugh at you."

I don't mind feminist heroines as long as they're fit

Of course, no one can be sure that cinema has had any impact at all on the way young women behave. Yet something has.

So it might be a good idea to do some research on the subject? Rather than just treating the bad influence of cinema as the default explanation?

Otherwise, an interesting article.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

@loulees

This game was set up by patriarchy, and now women are playing the game the patriarchy doesn't like it. There is hypocracy in this article at so many levels.

So David Cox is the Patriarchy? Is your challenge to the patriarchy only to make the rules of the game apply equally (and I think Cox argues fairly persuasively that female violence is celebrated by people who would frowned upon masculine violence, or at least not see it as empowerment, and therefore if it applied unequally, it is women, not men who are given a free pass) and not the the game itself?

Why not be a bit more ambitious and try to change the game?

Huh?

The young women in these films play out an entirely male-dictated version of what their self-realisation might constitute. Just how empowering is that?

How do you know? How do you know that that the 'male version' and 'female version' of their self-realisation aren't the same thing?

Or is your opinion that only men are entitled to finding ass-kicking empowering? Why?

You pointed yourself to research that shows women have just as much natural tendancy to aggression...

went to see the film a few weeks ago. Came out saying to companion.Well that was a monumental load of bollocks. I know that isn't a constructive criticism but there comes a point that you just have t let tings slide away into oblivion as soon as possible
What was it for, i asked?
The companion revealed that it had some reasonable reviews because of the feminist angle.
We thought it was unremittingly inane. don't even think of wastng your money seeig it unless you are deranged and obtain satisfaction in strange ways. I think, if you want to deal with the issue of changing or improving the standing and life chances of women, or whatever, it might be helpful t depict them as humans, not glorified machines, devoid of human potential.
the truth of the matter is that some marketing twats in the film company/distributor came up with the girl power angle after a brain storming session.

Um, wait, so violence in the movies is bad because it makes viewers violent?

Haven't we had this conversation already?

Yeah, we've had it before a million times, but we've never settled it. Even if you discount a simple causal relationship ('violence makes viewers violent') why is it so unthinkable that viewing things onscreen may have an effect on the way people observe in their daily lives?

Films often provoke strong emotional / physiological reactions: porn arouses, romcoms make people laugh or cry, slasher films can lead to feelings of fear / sadism. There are numerous other examples of people being strongly affected by things they only watch rather than participate in - post-traumatic stress disorder caused by witnessing a death or act of violence, for example. Obviously for the latter you can claim that people 'know the difference' between reality and fantasy, but this seems like an overly facile distinction that doesn't take into account the feelings of sympathy / imaginative identification that people feel when watching movies. And what about younger viewers anyway, who may not fully appreciate the difference to which films are different from real life? Are they more prone to having their behaviour rewired by what they see onscreen?

<quote>If every child grows up to be a superhero then who's going to be left do deliver the post and do office work?</quote>
That's what secret identities are for.

An interesting, thought-provoking article clearly intended to make readers think rather than spoon-feed them ideas - until the sexism against men is levelled, of course. Men are apparently "pitiful" because of violence.

Except of course we all know how many fights that women get men into, don't we? I mean, what man hasn't known a woman who stirs up trouble specifically because she -wants- her other half to give some other bloke a punch on the nose?

See? It's really easy to categorise a gender by the actions of a minority.

But that's not the norm. Nor are violent men the norm.

The word "patriarchy" is also exceptionally annoying. Kindly stop using it; it puts you in the same little envelope I put all the "all heterosexual sex is rape" feminists. IE, morons.

@djrupey

I bet you can't write a comment that doesn't include the words "lefty", "hand-wringing" or "Guardianista". But please try. Especially if you're going to accuse others of being tiresomely predictable.

Says Garbarino: "Girls hit, it feels good and people appreciate it: that's the message."

Or, a young, intelligent, insecure girl is bullied and teased from the get-go by an arrogant, jumped-up little prig - teased for her prominent front teeth, frizzy hair, the fact she is muggle-born and therefore a lower form of life ("mudblood", he calls her - meaning "dirty blood"). Said prig then fakes serious injury so he can ensure the execution of an innocent creature. Takes gruesome joy in this miscarriage of justice...THEN, "gir his guy. Whole world celebrates."

Point is - context. Story. That's how it happened, and the point is worthless without the surrounding emotional elements.

I really have trouble with the idea that anyone, male or female, would find a film where people run around killing each other in anyway 'empowering'. Surely portrayal of murder and suffering and the training of a 'murderer' is one of the most disempowering things we, as human beings, can witness?

I know this comment will be regarded as old fashioned, out of touch - generally a bit soft. However, surely, if an article can be written that links the portrayal of trained teenage assassins in conjunction with the concept of empowerment this can't be a good sign for our society?

Wait... I thought we were supposed to be against double standards. You know... Pink for girls, "sluts" versus "studs", careers vs parenting. I wish somebody would send me the bloody memos.

Or would "bloody" be bad...I don't know...I'm soooo confused!!!

"At the end of the 20th century, the modern myth of sexual equality has finally triumphed completely over the complementarity of gender, in which the plurality of cultures - distinct ways of living, dying and suffering - was rooted. The reign of vernacular gender marked a profoundly different mode of existence than what prevails under what I call the regime of economic sex. They are male/female dualities of a very different kind: Economic sex is the duality of one plus one, creating a coupling of exactly the same kind; gender is the duality of two parts that make a whole which is unique, novel, nonduplicable.”

Ivan Illich

Do you know what's not empowering for women?

Politicizing everything they do.

Got to love the gendered assumption that it's bad for girls to be violent, because now a very small fraction of the violent people on screen (and next to none in games) are female.

What about the very large fraction of violent people on screen who are male? Given that this panic is not weighted by the actual prevalence of male versus female violent characters, is the author implying it's OK for boys to be violent? Or might we acknowledge that violence on screen is just a story, and it's good to get some gender balance into it?

This article seems less like the author has a problem with violence, and more like he has a problem with girls who aren't passive.

Whatever sells films. If it were slugs in panama hats we would have movies about slugs in panama hats.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

why not have films showing men how to live a life without killing, exploitation and hostile agression.

@Tiresias

Slugs, you say? In panama hats, you say? Keep talkin'

And there's me finding changing nappies and doing the washing and cooking empowering. My wife seems to enjoy having a good shout at the telly and nodding off on the sofa of an afternoon. Where do we fit in the oh-so rigidly applied rules of gender-specific behaviour?

Perhaps we can console ourselves with the thought that there's always the off switch. Or the EXIT doors, if you're in a cinema. But you get my point, I suspect. Ban everything in case it falls into the 'wrong' hands, only then can we be assured of a mutually homogenised world of apathy... oh, hang on, we've got one of those already...

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

plus one for Slugs in Panama Hats - is it going to be directed by Ken Loach or Mike Leigh? Either would be a shoe-in for Grauniad film of the year...

Have I got this right?

When men are violent, it is a failure to control the testosterone fuelled impulses that reduce them to little more than apeish thugs.

When women are violent, it is an empowering declaration of equality.

Riight...

So David Cox is the Patriarchy? Is your challenge to the patriarchy only to make the rules of the game apply equally (and I think Cox argues fairly persuasively that female violence is celebrated by people who would frowned upon masculine violence, or at least not see it as empowerment, and therefore if it applied unequally, it is women, not men who are given a free pass) and not the the game itself?

Why not be a bit more ambitious and try to change the game?

@mathnawi

Oh please! This is such bullshit, violence by men is accepted everyday, it's so insidious it no longer gets any attention. When violent behaviour by men and the films that eminate this stop, then you would have just cause to call these films out, until then it's just hypocracy, and probably a bit of fear. Which is a bit rich in a world dominated by violence towards women.

As for changing the game, did you see the reviews of the sex in the city movie, it may have been crap but the level of vitriol that came form male journalists about a harmless film. When you try to change the game, this is what you get. Terms like 'chick flick' are thrown about as derogetory things to label anything aimed at women, so what do you expect?

It's a typical ephebophilic middle-aged man's fantasy: to be ass-kicked by a nymph.

It's a typical ephebophilic middle-aged man's fantasy: to be ass-kicked by a nymph.

Oh look, the director is a 39-year old male and the writer is a 30-year old male.

Yes, definitely the sisters doing it for themselves.

Why does every single film fronted by a woman have to be viewed as either helpful or harmful to feminism? The industry still needs to grow up if these are the debates we're still having, that they need to continue to be careful when writing female characters that it doesn't get viewed as a contentious choice designed to either empower woman or demean them. We can have male characters who are not viewed via such a prism.

Female heroines filling lots of people should be no different to male heroes fill lots of people.

>>Do kick-ass young heroines empower women or are they just sustaining a masculine idea of what feminism is?<<

Who gives a toss as long as its a good action movie?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

@Damien

I agree, it's unfair criticism and it's unfair to be making a big deal about it.

Speaking as a middle-aged feminist I find the trend of depicting fictional heroines using physical violence against men deeply worrying. Men are a lot stronger than women and our kick-ass girl is likely to get seriously broken if he retaliates. It started with Buffy, which I loved, but that character had supernatural powers so worked in context. Since then we regularly see men and women in films engaged in fist fights, or martial arts together, this has no bearing on reality and is a dangerous fiction for young girls who may decide to 'have a go' rather than run away if they find themselves in a threatening situation with a stranger.

I know this comment will be regarded as old fashioned, out of touch - generally a bit soft. However, surely, if an article can be written that links the portrayal of trained teenage assassins in conjunction with the concept of empowerment this can't be a good sign for our society?

It will be regarded as such because it is.

I suggest you learn the definition of fiction, it may well serve to highlight the fundamental flaw in your argument.

Furthermore, if you object so strongly to the portrayal of a female action hero as evidence of the gradual decline of society, then do not worry, there are plenty of "empowering" texts just for you! Sex and the City and anything by Jilly Cooper, for example. Nice "Empowered" women buying shoes and marrying rich men. Just for women, too!

"Do kick-ass young heroines empower women or are they just sustaining a masculine idea of what feminism is"

No they do neither.

The reason hollywood have matched young, hot girls / women to violence is becausee most boys / men who like these films cannot connect to women on any feminine basis and need the violence to "make the girl interested in the same thing they are".

It simply a marketing exercise to get young men watching what they like best: Cartoon violence and young hot women.

In the case of the Fast and Furious, you just have to add in fast cars. It's no surprise that they have made 5 films to date out of that premise.

Who gives a toss as long as its a good action movie?

My thoughts precisely. Except for the missing apostrophe.

romantic 9 May 2011 1:45PM why not have films showing men how to live a life without killing, exploitation and hostile agression.

What you're talking about, I believe, is any film involving Hugh Grant. They're available from all good outlets.

'assaults have become the most common first-time crime for females under 17'

I was actually arrested for assault when I was 17. I lashed out at a bloke, who was giving me a touch too much unwanted attention, and somehow the police got involved, blah blah etc. Anyway it was his fault for being a dick, not some action movie's.

Russ Meyer he rocked this genre a long long time ago, Tarantino tried in Death Proof and well what's wrong with a bit of Thelma and Louise. Is it exploitation or entertainment, who cares if you enjoy a film and nobody got hurt making it. Its a piece of fiction and its in the story and acting as to whether its good or bad.

@01billycat

Speaking as a middle-aged feminist I find the trend of depicting fictional heroines using physical violence against men deeply worrying. Men are a lot stronger than women and our kick-ass girl is likely to get seriously broken if he retaliates. It started with Buffy, which I loved, but that character had supernatural powers so worked in context. Since then we regularly see men and women in films engaged in fist fights, or martial arts together, this has no bearing on reality and is a dangerous fiction for young girls who may decide to 'have a go' rather than run away if they find themselves in a threatening situation with a stranger.

That's not really right. If they find themselves in a threatening situation then their own instinct will survive and there subsequent fight or flight reaction will not be informed on the basis of a film they recently seen. Rather, they will have a sense of their own abilities and will make a decision based on what is likely to keep them out of harms way.

After all men don't react to situations on the assumption that because James Bond can dispatch many a henchman without breaking or sweat or messing up his suit that they can do the same. They are also unlikely to be thinking 'What would Jason Borne do?' when confronted by a guy with a knife in a dark alley.

Also, most films with female action leads tend to give an explanation into how they are so capable. Be it supernatural powers, martial arts training, radiation, or some other sort of special skill. They are presented as alpha-females in the same way action men are presented as alpha-males. There is little difference other than that they tend to add an element of sexuality because actions films, regardless of the lead, are often marketed towards men.

Research at the University of Montreal has shown that baby girls are just as aggressive as baby boys;

The link was a link to a unreadable mostly behind a paywall newspaper reporting on the findings. Its nonsense, in any case. There is a clear causal link between testosterone and aggression. Testosterone is manufactured in the male body at a rate of - at least 10 times - the female. However it doesn't really get going until puberty, certainly not when babies. The "gender is a construct" nonsense will not die a death no matter how much science in thrown at it.

These are movies, in real life the girl in Kick Ass would have had her ass handed to her on a plate by the first older than 15 year old boy she encountered.

@Jimjimjeroo

What you're talking about, I believe, is any film involving Hugh Grant. They're available from all good outlets.

Don't kid yourself Jimmy, If Hugh Grant had a chance he would kill you and everyone you care about.

So David Cox is the Patriarchy? Is your challenge to the patriarchy only to make the rules of the game apply equally (and I think Cox argues fairly persuasively that female violence is celebrated by people who would frowned upon masculine violence, or at least not see it as empowerment, and therefore if it applied unequally, it is women, not men who are given a free pass) and not the the game itself? Why not be a bit more ambitious and try to change the game? @mathnawi Oh please! This is such bullshit, violence by men is accepted everyday, it's so insidious it no longer gets any attention. When violent behaviour by men and the films that eminate this stop, then you would have just cause to call these films out, until then it's just hypocracy, and probably a bit of fear. Which is a bit rich in a world dominated by violence towards women. As for changing the game, did you see the reviews of the sex in the city movie, it may have been crap but the level of vitriol that came form male journalists about a harmless film. When you try to change the game, this is what you get. Terms like 'chick flick' are thrown about as derogetory things to label anything aimed at women, so what do you expect?

Re violence by men is accepted everyday - by Guardian columnists? Really? In a similar context, i.e. beating up the person with whom you have shared you first kiss. Are you sure?

Sex in the City is female empowerment as imagined by gay fashionistas and designer label flogging corporate sponsors. It was directed by a man, written by four men, and of 19 producers, just three were women. The music, editing and cinematography were all by men. Michael Patrick King is no Sally Potter. It has as much to do with female empowerment as Fast&Furious has for male empowerment. Though I haven't seen the film, most of the criticism seemed to be that the film was crap, with a risible plotline, and a shameless paen to mindless materialism, rather than that the film was aimed at women (and gay men presumably) and was thus a 'chick flick'. Films by Jane Campion, Sally Potter and Lynne Ramsey - films made by and presumably aimed at least in part at a female audience - received very positive reviews based on their merits.

I don't see how you read Sex in the City as particularly empowering for anybody other than purveyors of high-end handbags.

@loulees - hypocrisy.

The idea that there is something admirable and "empowering" about hurting other people - whether the perpetrator is a boy, girl, man or woman - is a sign of all that's wrong with our society.