Said Jennifer Lawrence, at Elle's Women in Hollywood, giving us a glimpse of the kind of female producers you get in Hollywood.
Listen up, columnists who proffer the solution of putting some more women in positions of executive power.* Women do hurt other women, and they can do it in a system in which the men are out to sexually exploit women. For one thing, some women are into sexually dominating/humiliating other women. For another, if the men are structuring the workplace around their own sexual interests, the women who rise within the power structure may be the ones who play along, facilitate, and demonstrate what tough gals they are. And then there's just good old fashioned woman-on-woman cruelty — all that envy and the burning desire to be The Woman.
_________________________
* For example, NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg, who reacted to the Harvey Weinstein story with "Put Women in Charge" (though, to her credit, she said, "Obviously, female bosses can be abusive and can create cultures where abusive behavior toward underlings is tolerated"):
Feminism’s energy has shifted left, toward women who want to dismantle the ruling class, not diversify it. When “broader female access to executive perches in Wall Street and Silicon Valley gets treated as some sort of movement-wide victory, then something clearly has gone wrong in our understanding of what feminism is and can do,” Jessa Crispin wrote in The New Republic. ...
Nevertheless, as long as we have a hierarchal society, the gender of those at the top matters....
पोस्ट्स
१५५ टिप्पण्या:
"the gender of those at the top matters...."
Can you just say sex? Words have gender. People have sex.
Perhaps a less regimented interpretation of everything is called for, rather than more regimented.
"[T]hough, to her credit, she said, "Obviously, female bosses can be abusive and can create cultures where abusive behavior toward underlings is tolerated")].
I think people shouldn't be credited for saying, "So, my crazy idea is obviously flawed, but, let me tell you about it anyway."
"Words have gender. People have sex."
That ship sailed long ago.
You could argue that "sex" is the preferable term and we should get back to it, but it's way too late to say the word "gender" cannot even be correctly applied to human beings.
I've got it. We need a woman Pope. That will fix everything.
In English, words, in general, don't have gender. Pronouns identify individuals by their gender, but it isn't like French where computer is la or le.
"Listen up, columnists who proffer the solution of putting some more women in positions of executive power.* Women do hurt other women" Ah, yes--just the sort of thing feminists do -- listening up! considering the harm done by women and the unintended consequences of "progressive" change! Nice try, though.
"Feminism’s energy has shifted left, toward women who want to dismantle the ruling class, not diversify it." In a way I appreciate this. Instead of equality blather and women-are-special phoniness, we get the prog lust for power out in the open. But I am not sure that it is to women's advantage to frame their lust as a "class" war with men. Civil rights, we get; equality, we were willing to consider; women-are-special, we assumed and could tolerate within reason. But getting rid of men, we'll fight. Whether it will work out well for women depends on whether they can nag enough betas into submission.
Regarding weight, I think women are much tougher on themselves and each other than men are on women. Most heterosexual men aren't into the anemic model look.
Regarding fuckabilty, that applies equally with male and female leads. It's just a fact of life.
The lesson here, which should surprise no one, is that Hollywood is peopled by hypocrites, perverts, and sociopaths. And as always, when human beings are put into positions of power, sooner or later there will be those that choose to abuse that power.
OED gender, the third meaning:
"Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.
"Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b."
The oldest example of this meaning is from 1474: "His heyres of the masculine gender of his body lawfully begotten."
From 1632: "Here's a woman: The soule of Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit, is more masculine, Then the first gender."
1723 : "Of the fair Sex..my only Consolation for being of that Gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being marry'd to any one amongst them."
I asked to speak to a producer about the unrealistic diet regime and he responded by telling me he didn't know why everyone thought I was so fat, he thought I was perfectly 'fuckable.'"
WOW, she can't even take a compliment! Dammed if you do, damned if you don't.
"I think people shouldn't be credited for saying, "So, my crazy idea is obviously flawed, but, let me tell you about it anyway.""
I give some credit for that.
But here's the thing: You are applying for a job where you will appear naked or nearly naked. You are going to have to appear naked to get the job, and you are going to be told if you won't get the job if you don't look the way they want you to look.
Women do hurt other women... And then there's just good old fashioned woman-on-woman cruelty — all that envy and the burning desire to be The Woman.
I think the all-female Lord of the Flies remake should be set in Hollywood.
It's funny because now women are complaining about how awful men are as bosses. But when a woman is criticized as being an awful boss, we hear "She's called a bitch or bossy, but if she were a man she would be praised for her leadership!".
Which is it going to be? I mean, "ban bossy!" wasn't that long ago.
Curiously the second award in Best of Breed competition at AKC shows is still Best of Opposite Sex, not Best of Opposite Gender.
Dogs: un-Woke.
It's almost as if people like Goldberg have a default position of "Put women in charge" -- i.e. give them unearned positions of power based on nothing but their biological sex -- and they'll use any excuse to push that position regardless of whether there's any connection or logic.
You could even base a whole presidential campaign on it. Hypothetically.
So, who was this female executive that had J-Lo line up nude with 5 other women? If we don't know who it was, how can we punish her and prevent it from happening again?
Or is this another open secret that people aren't willing to go on the record about?
As has become my habit, I point out that Jennifer Lawrence didn't feel the need to tell us the names of these abusive people.
Right now they are abusing someone else.
If you dismantle the ruling class, what replaces it? Something will replace it, and it will be hierarchical because that's the way Homo Sapien Sapiens roll. We're pack animals. Something hierarchical will replace the ruling class the leftist femininists want to dismantle, and that something will be another ruling class. Different from the old one, sure -- but not too different. Meet the new boss, similar to the old boss. And quite possibly worse. But who knows.
Which is it going to be? I mean, "ban bossy!" wasn't that long ago.
I've noticed that generally when people complain of a double standard, what they really want is to reverse the direction so that the inconsistency favors their own side.
After 40 years in Medicine, I learned that nurses much preferred male supervisors,
I have told hundreds of young men who are interested in healthcare to give serious thought to getting an RN plus a BSN or other degree. They will quickly move on into management.
Male nurses usually end up as supervisors unless they are just not competent.
The stories about female supervisors in nursing and their pets are legion.
Seems like these days the usage a lot of people want to use is: Sex is what you're born as, gender is what you present as. (Sigh.)
"Regarding weight, I think women are much tougher on themselves and each other than men are on women. Most heterosexual men aren't into the anemic model look. Regarding fuckabilty, that applies equally with male and female leads. It's just a fact of life."
I agree that a really bony, scrawny person doesn't look that good naked and doesn't create the impression of providing excellent body-to-body sensation.
But the question is what do people want from their bodies. If you want to look great in certain clothes and costumes, most people think it's better to be thin. Too thin for the ideal if what you want to do is athletic or getting looked at naked.
In the movie casting context, the question is whether you have what's needed for the role, and usually that means looking right in particular costumes, but it can also mean looking like you could do the things the character does. Is "fuckable" a legitimate factor in casting? Actually, if you think about what movies are, it is!
Now, I think in an employment context, it's important for people to treat each other as professionals and that they should avoid exploiting and hurting each other. And powerful people should be careful what they do.
I'm at the point where I almost don't want to watch movies, because I'm afraid the exploitation is built into the whole project. They are making fantasies for us, fantasies that engage with our libido, and they use human beings as raw material.
Nevertheless, as long as we have a hierarchal society,
Every society is hierarchal......it's just a matter of who is on top....
Nevertheless, as long as we have a hierarchal society, the gender of those at the top matters....
Pretty much sums it up. The society itself no longer matters to people, only who is at the top of the pyramid.
The country is going to Hell because the people out of power no longer want to reform society's corruption, but ensure the corruption is equally distributed among those they deem worthy of society's largess.
Corruption has become a feature, rather than a bug, like it is in every third-world socialist utopia.
"Regarding weight, I think women are much tougher on themselves and each other than men are on women.'
If society has been repeatedly compared to high school, who do you want running things? The football team or the cheerleading squad?
I’m missing the offense here. Why is it suddenly a surprise that an actor’s body is a subject for examination and discussion and that it’s a legitimate subject? Those who invest in film and tv are selling....in addition to story and production values.....SEX! Lots and lots of SEX!
While it may have been a little too sharp for her snowflake Kentucky ears, I would say that the producer’s comment was exactly on point to the question raised. Is she or is she not fuckable? He couldn’t have been more precise. She obviously would have preferred some mealy-mouthed evasion. “I think you present a very appealing image that will capture the imagination of our viewers [inner monologue - as they fap themselves crazy looking at you and I, myself, am going to presently rub up a chubbie right in this potted plant].”
The wymins are over-doing it, and it will shortly backfire if it hasn’t already. The progs never know when to stop.
- Krumhorn
The people saying “put women in charge” obviously have not heard of the thousands of public and private school women teachers who seduce and sexually abuse their students, both male (mostly) and female. The sexually abuse of students in the public schools is about two orders of magnitude greater in frequency than the horror that infested the Catholic Church a few decades ago.
I'm curious about what sort of role this was for. It's not a great business, but it's ridiculous to deny that film is a visual medium, where appearance, and yes, fuckability, matter a great deal.
When it comes to fuckability, better than nothing is an extremely low standard.
MayBee said...
I mean, "ban bossy!" wasn't that long ago.
It was a whole election ago. It failed to serve its purpose. Time to find something new.
Did Jennifer Lawrence know what she had signed up for ?
I wonder how much ambition you have to have to be willing to stand nude in a line-up with just pasties covering your privates and be told that you should use the experience to motivate you to lose weight.
I get that it's cruel, it's horrifying, it's just so debasing, but she agreed to do it. But she shouldn't have had to...yeah, okay, true but...but...objective manifestation of consent.
And now Jennifer Lawrence is worth millions, many millions, has won an Oscar and has her pick of roles. I don't know, as things go, she must have figured the sacrifice of her dignity, her self-respect was worth it to get where she wanted to go.
P.S. Lawrence was apparently under consideration for the role of Sharon Tate in the movie Tarantino is making about Tate's life but Sharon's sister didn't think Lawrence was pretty enough. Should we be appalled by that? Anyway, he's cast some Australian actress instead. Margaret Robbie who does look more like Sharon Tate than Jennifer Lawrence does.
Hollywood-produced entertainment played a big role in changing of society's morals. Casual sex and even promiscuity has been portrayed as the way to be.
Now we see how incredibly self-serving that was. Loosen the morals of young people who are interested in entertainment, then expect young people to have loose morals when they want a part in your show.
"Nevertheless, as long as we have a hierarchal society, the gender of those at the top matters...."
So, forever then?
"I'm curious about what sort of role this was for."
I mean, her big franchise is for a character who is portrayed as literally half-starving at the beginning of the story.
If society has been repeatedly compared to high school, who do you want running things? The football team or the cheerleading squad?
I'd pick the marching band.
"Lawrence recounted a story about the producers of an unnamed film, who asked her to lose weight. "One girl before me had already been fired for not losing enough weight fast enough,"
She's curiously giving all the info EXCEPT what the role was...
"because I'm afraid the exploitation is built into the whole project. They are making fantasies for us, fantasies that engage with our libido, and they use human beings as raw material."
Is politics any different?
"I will lend my voice to any boy, girl, man, or woman who does not feel like they can protect themselves."
Yet she won't identify this female producer who wanted a nude lineup. Some voice. Unless,
"The actress expressed her support of the commission proposed by Lucasfilm president [and producer] Kathleen Kennedy."
Re Jennifer Lawrence: Oh, give me a break already. Her appearance (including body type) was no doubt important to the role she was auditioning for. In the circumstances it seems to me that the procedure for determining her physical suitability for the role -- i.e., standing effectively unclothed in a line-up -- was entirely appropriate. Maybe the female producer was a bit harsh in her language and assessment but, golly, life is hard and then you die. Man up, girl.
Feminism’s energy has shifted left, toward women who want to dismantle the ruling class, not diversify it.”
Gee, I thought that is what the deplorables and the Tea Party types wanted. Not a complete dismantling, but a replacement of the ruling classes because ours has become so decadent and feckless. And the left has been fighting to maintain the swamp and the status quo.
She really wants to abolish hierarchical structures? Can someone please point me to a successfully functioning non-hierarchial society? Feminists also favor a massive expansion of the nanny state. So how is this monster government kept running with no chain of command? Every Communist and every capitalist country has people at the top. The Party bureaucrats in Communist countries have privileges that the ordinary workers do not.
If she wants to dismantle the (male) ruling class , it’s because she wants to replace it with her own ruling class (female). Somehow I think that this Amazonian fantasy, should it come to pass, would not work as well as she thinks it would. In fact, some of our problems now are due to the fact that the West has become overly feminized while the Muslim world is brutally masculine. Women have made the advances they have in the West because men have permitted them to. If another culture takes over and withdraws that permission slip, what are you gonna do about that, lady?
"The female producer..."
Ah, at long last, names named....
#stayingsilent-MeToo
I'm currently participating in a "Lean In" circle sponsored by the company I work for. The Lean In circles, which I'm not sure is mandated by corporate or is voluntary, are the off-shoot of Sheryl Sandberg's book and it's all about promoting women. So far int he first 15 min we haven't gotten anti-man just yet nor anti-Trump but I'm waiting.
If my company is creating a similar culture as Althouse describes with women on women cruelty I can only imagine what its going to be like with more women in charge. I'm already hearing of the catty-ness of our Customer Service dept which is entirely women and all the back-talking and gossip and people getting fired for this or that. Non-stop drama.
Why is leftwing Hollywood so insensitive to women's rights?
When it comes to fuckability, better than nothing is an extremely low standard.
It may be an extremely low standard, but it is a sufficient standard when the beer goggles come on at 2am and final call has been sounded in some waterfront bar in Olongapo.
- Krumhorn.
Feminism’s energy has shifted left, toward women who want to dismantle the ruling class, not diversify it.
Just like the French Revolution.
MayBee at 11:00am - yes, exactly.
I don't want to excuse the behavior of people who break the law by harassing/assaulting people, but ... It is a bit rich that these actresses are one the one hand asking to be cast in parts that frequently involve them being mostly naked, having simulated sex on screen in front of millions of people, and on the other hand are disgusted that the person creating this movie wants a back rub from them in return for the role. No, you shouldn't be forced to touch (or be touched) by someone, but on the other hand, why exactly do you want millions of people to see and appreciate your mostly naked body? The hypocrisy is built right into that situation, I'm sorry to say.
Boy, people are willing to do some really degrading things to be 'famous'.
Blonde and brunette are both feminine gender in English.
vs blond and brunet, masculine.
I'm betting if she had received the expected adulation and the woman next to her got the diet lecture, we wouldn't be hearing about this. The story of a number of Hollywood women seems to be they are fine with trading on their looks until their looks get critiqued.
Professor, What a great euphemism: "providing excellent body-to-body sensation".
I seem to recall standing naked in a row in gym in school but nobody was interested, as far as I recall. Least of all the guys lined up.
If the role was for Hunger Games, are they actors supposed to look ....hungry? As I remember, Lawrence was criticized for not looking a little too healthy for the role.
Anne Hathaway, I in some interview, said it depends on your gender, but for women it's like a thong with no sides, and for men it's a pouch, in fuck scenes.
Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown could have covered it if they had been around then.
I'm at the point where I almost don't want to watch movies, because I'm afraid the exploitation is built into the whole project. They are making fantasies for us, fantasies that engage with our libido, and they use human beings as raw material.
Have you seen "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?"
I am no prude but I did wonder why that young woman was willing to do that role.
The movie is pretty good but the sex scenes are pretty graphic.
In "The Maltese Falcon" it is clear that Mary Astor and Bogart have been to bed together. Can anyone imagine them doing the scene in Tattoo?
In some Hugh Grant thing about people hooking up, a couple doing a fuck scene for the camera were arranging a date, for coffee or something, in the start of a romance. The fuck being background job work to them.
rhhardin,
Maybe the gym teacher was interested. we always suspected our HS gym teacher who really seemed to enjoy handing out towels.
Dragon Tattoo was okay. I didn't think twice about it. Boob scenes and fuck scenes just roll off me. Jaded.
It probably rolls off the actors too. It's all camera work and retakes and so forth to them.
Doubtful the gym teacher was interested.
I liked that the girl was really smart and a computer genius, in Dragon Tattoo. The nude scenes are to get the non-nerds interested probably.
"And then there's just good old fashioned woman-on-woman cruelty — all that envy and the burning desire to be The Woman."
And the relentless pressure to conform to the Group. What women often ignore is that back in the bad old days, the people who were most ruthless about enforcing societal norms were - women. That was true when old biddies shunned and ostracized, say, unwed mothers or women who scandalized the town by not wearing widow's weeds for the proscribed length of time. It's true today when Sudanese mothers take their terrified daughters to be genitally mutilated because it's what all the nice, chaste Muslim girls have done and what will people think of my girl if she doesn't?
Years ago I stood naked in a row with a roomful of other guys at my US Navy induction physical. At one point we were directed to bend over and spread our 'stern cheeks', a nice nautical touch. I doubt the medics enjoyed the sight. After years of silence, I am now Speaking Out.
One thing that's always wrong with fuck scenes is that the anxious actors tear each other's clothes off, to indicate eagerness.
Never been my experience. There's a regular series of pitches, bases earned, fielding and so forth.
Boys are being taught wrong by these things.
What happened to using body doubles?
I'd pick the marching band.
So your preferred version of society is being required to show up for car washes so everyone can be hauled into the wood to attend mandatory camps? And when not there, constantly being paraded around in ranks while playing music for half-interested crowds?
I think Germany tried that.
What happened to using body doubles?
Moviegoers got tired of hearing how actress x's ass wasn't really actress x's ass.
Body doubles are just as abused in theory, even more since the pay is lower.
Old New Yorker cartoon, two ladies watching huge hude woman on silver screen, "Here's where the body double comes in."
Now so many of the top actresses (and some actors) have digital retouching in their contracts. I find it distracting. A constant, low hum of, "What is going on with this person's face? Some special effect is being applied." I like real faces. I'd like a wider variety of faces onscreen. Grisled faces, weird faces, plain faces, pointy faces, blocky faces, and more faces, all of these are needed to tell stories.
Blogger tcrosse said...
I doubt the medics enjoyed the sight.
--
Sounds like a good way to get medics to put in for combat support.
Feminism’s energy has shifted left, toward women who want to dismantle the ruling class, not diversify it. When “broader female access to executive perches in Wall Street and Silicon Valley gets treated as some sort of movement-wide victory, then something clearly has gone wrong in our understanding of what feminism is and can do
Oh, goody, the sort of feminism that thinks that capitalism & the patriarchy go hand in glove. No doubt along with the "traditional" family.
When they're in power, it won't be pervy producers. It'll be corpses by the hundreds of thousands. Everyone will be nostalgic for a time when the evil at hand was simply sexual excess.
I've always thought body doubles were a great idea. Offers another point of specialization. Offers work for people who like to focus on creating especially attractive or otherwise specialized bodies.
I have 4 Jennifer Lawrence DVDs and don't remember her either. I remember the plot in Passengers and Sliver Linings Playbook though.
Free/Hunt. You get better faces and character actors watching British films and TV series....warts and all.
Mel Gibson does his own ass work.
- Julia Roberts in Notting Hill
Ann Althouse said...
I'm at the point where I almost don't want to watch movies, because I'm afraid the exploitation is built into the whole project.
I sometimes feel the same way about universities...
Ding zui (Chinese: 顶罪; pinyin: dǐngzuì) is the Chinese practice of hiring impostors or body doubles to stand trial and receive punishment in one's place. The term translates as "substitute criminal," and is reported to be a relatively common practice among China's wealthy elite.
Jennifer Lawrence did some serious movie-stealing in American Hustle, Amy Adams hardest hit.
I didn't want to repeat material that's in the Reese Witherspoon post earlier today, but if you click on the link, you'll see a very similar statement from Lawrence, that she went along because she wanted the job.
"When it comes to fuckability, better than nothing is an extremely low standard."
Wow. I sure don't think so. I would rather have nothing, and I have lived by that code.
If it's normal, it's not psychologically damaging.
The hysteria about it is what's traumatic. Paradoxical, if the hysteria is about its being damaging.
I remember reading a while back that Michele Pfeiffer always refused to do nude scenes because "my dad would kill me." She also said she continued to drive an old clunker around LA until she made her third successful film because she knew too many people who had a good part in one film, thought stardom was on the way, started spending lavishly and ended up doing porn to pay off their debts because it turned out stardom was not on the way.
She struck me as an unusually level-headed woman as well as being a great beauty and fine actress.
I like real faces. I'd like a wider variety of faces onscreen. Grisled faces, weird faces, plain faces, pointy faces, blocky faces, and more faces, all of these are needed to tell stories.
They do exist (Steve Buscemi) but the same actors tend to be cast in all the relevant roles.
Feminism’s energy has shifted left,
Feminism's energy has always been leftist.....it can't get any more leftist.
The Chinese also hire beaters to beat them.
In particular, a team that hires itself out pulling barges hires a beater to beat them if they slack off.
Why? The idea is that the other guys don't want to do the work of a slacker, and the beater keeps them all honest.
Wow. I sure don't think so. I would rather have nothing, and I have lived by that code.
You're a woman.
"Now so many of the top actresses (and some actors) have digital retouching in their contracts. I find it distracting. A constant, low hum of, "What is going on with this person's face? Some special effect is being applied." I like real faces. I'd like a wider variety of faces onscreen. Grisled faces, weird faces, plain faces, pointy faces, blocky faces, and more faces, all of these are needed to tell stories."
There used to be faces... "We had faces. There just aren’t any faces like that anymore."
Now so many of the top actresses (and some actors) have digital retouching in their contracts
Isn't this just a technological extension of make up?
Meg Ryan's face is assymetric.
Jupiter said...
Can you just say sex? Words have gender. People have sex.
One's gender is socially constructed, so when e.g. google asks for my gender I socially construct it to be the opposite of my biological sex. So "They" can just socially reconstruct the gender of whoever is at the top of whatever little shit-pile they're worried about. Either that or use the correct word.
rhhardin: In some Hugh Grant thing about people hooking up, a couple doing a fuck scene for the camera were arranging a date, for coffee or something, in the start of a romance. The fuck being background job work to them.
Love, Actually. Martin Freeman was the man.
They weren't the actors, or even the body doubles. They were only there to give the crew a reference for lighting and camera set-up.
Ann Althouse said...
[Lawrence] went along because she wanted the job.
"Went along" with what? The not-really-nude casting call that she did voluntarily, or the compliment that she got afterwards?
I'm at the point where I almost don't want to watch movies, because I'm afraid the exploitation is built into the whole project. They are making fantasies for us, fantasies that engage with our libido, and they use human beings as raw material.
Well, it is, and disengage from that if you must, but be realistic and take the wide view.
Maybe it's just the art/fantasty/libido thing that is bothering you, and you're not concerned with the wide view, but still: Do you think the women who clean the hotel rooms you stay at on road trips have lived lives free from exploitation, disrespect or abuse? The restaurant workers? The janitorial staff at the college? The laborers at warehouses or the stockers at grocery stores?
Remember Fantine in Les Miserables?
Have you seen how the foreman is fuming today
With his terrible breath and his wandering hands
It's because little Fantine won't give him his way
Take a look at his trousers, you'll see where he stands
Many many many many women put up with this shit every day because they HAVE TO to keep their kids fed, clothed and warm.
I have little sympathy for Jennifer Lawrence and Reese Witherspoon and their ilk. They could have walked out. They could have blown whistles. They could have gone to veterinarian school. They could have become stay at home mothers or kindergarten teachers. They choose to pay the price to do what they wanted to now sit in their little nests built on fame and millions of dollars and get a microphone to do their emoting in public. Give me a break.
Fernandinande said...
One's gender is socially constructed, so when e.g. google asks for my gender I socially construct it to be the opposite of my biological sex.
10/18/17, 12:18 PM
In that case, for online purposes, my gender henceforth is "Ferric Oxide". Let it be written, let it be done.
You hear the same thing in baseball, where young arms are lined up and their stuff measured side by side with a radar gun. Lots of tears and drinking of boxed wine follows for some.
I think that the real problem is that what looks good on screen is not necessarily the same thing that feels great next to you in bed.
Meg Ryan's face was perfect, asymmetry notwithstanding.
Jennifer Lawrence did not have to participate in that nude line-up. She was told / asked to do so. She could and should have said, "No."
There's a lot of money in Hollywood. If providing sexual favors to others is necessary to get some of that money, then the name of the occupation is not "actress. The occupation is "prostitute."
Who gets the Harvey for staging the nude lineup?
I'm taking a guess and nominating Deanna Brigidi-Stewart, who did casting for the 2008 movie Garden Party, directed by Jason Freeland. As evidence, I offer the movie poster and its tag line, "Come with a Dream. Leave with a Story."
Freeman Hunt said...
Now so many of the top actresses (and some actors) have digital retouching in their contracts.
Some of them even exaggerate their secondary sex, er, gender characteristics with surgery and ...(gasp!) drugs!
For some mysterious reason it's always the sex-stuff, tits, butts, faces and muscles; they don't make their foreheads larger in order to appear smarter, or enlarge their ears so they'll look like a good listener.
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
I have little sympathy for Jennifer Lawrence and Reese Witherspoon and their ilk. They could have walked out.
Eggs-actly.
I think these actresses are ...get ready for it.... ACTING!
Todd said...
my gender henceforth is "Ferric Oxide".
Check with "Rusty".
I'm at the point where I almost don't want to watch movies, because I'm afraid the exploitation is built into the whole project. They are making fantasies for us, fantasies that engage with our libido, and they use human beings as raw material.
Try doing that for things brought to you by industries that grind men up and spit them out like farming, fishing, firefighting, aviation, roofing, logging, mining, oil exploration, the NFL. I didn't think so. Female privileged.
i had to stand in line naked for a draft physical. what sympathy do i get?
You can make too much of the fuckability factor. By a wide margin, Bridgette Bardot was far more fuckable than Audrey Hepburn. Nonetheless, I don't think she would have been better in the Princess role in Roman Holiday. Grace Kelly wasn't all that fuckable either but her flawless beauty disguised her lack of sex appeal. Of course, back then actresses weren't expected to do nude scenes or lesbo kisses. Maybe sex appeal is more important for a modern actress. It's all very well to be beautiful or charming, but how do you look when you're naked and writhing in passion........Men have a rich fantasy life. They sometimes like to imagine themselves doing something noble and self sacrificing for a woman like Audrey Hepburn. There are still some stars who fill this niche, but most are hired more for their sex appeal than their charm.
I'd dispute that actresses look good naked. They look naked, is all.
It's better if there's a plot line for it.
Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler went for the looks-good-naked babes. The odd celebrity was rare and not the same kind of spread.
Naked actresses are playing for the appeal of the character they're known for. I'd like to meet her stuff.
Like you really have to twist a lot of arms to get the ladies to do the "lesbo kisses". Most have been to "away camp" and college and already know what they are doing, amiright?
Ironically, if you cared about the victims, or "victims," of all this Hollywood casting couch, you'd cast it as that this was perfectly normal but we've got to change it (if you want to change it).
Emphasize that it's normal.
The hysteria is what damages the psyche.
In the normal case, the woman is in control. In the hysterical case she isn't.
The damage is in how she takes it.
Nevertheless, as long as we have a hierarchical society, the gender of those at the top matters....
We only have a sample size of one, but if evolution rules the roost across the cosmos, I would expect any intelligent/apex species to be hierarchical.
If you are in control, and you have a bad experience, you just do it differently to stop it. No problem. Gone.
The hysterical case is you're damaged and there's nothing you can do about it.
Not a good therapeutic line. Quite the opposite.
Skulls of smart-looking Peruvian actors.
Is politics any different?
I'd say yes, because politics are a fact of life that we have to deal with. Movies are entertainment and can thus be ignored. You can ignore politics, but it can still shift the ground under your feet. Movies, far less so.
Mr. Pants who is a consultant was at a client meeting comprised of 10-12 marketing dept employees, all of whom were millennial women. He made some point and one of the women spat out, "Of course you would think that. You're a man."
Can you imagine the whining and keening if the genders were reversed? But no hanky and national outcry for him, because men don't get to complain about being demeaned because of their gender.
(I'm still annoyed he didn't give the modern classic response, an incredulous, "Did you just assume my gender?")
if the men are structuring the workplace around their own sexual interests, the women who rise within the power structure may be the ones who play along, facilitate, and demonstrate what tough gals they are.
Sounds like the plot of The Handmaid's Tale.
I think the all-female Lord of the Flies remake should be set in Hollywood.
They've tried it several times, but there were no survivors among the cast and crew.
J. Lawrence is pretty enough, but she has never been Brigitte Bardot, Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelley.
Is it just me, or is the entertainment business getting worse at finding beautiful actresses?
Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler: it's not that fake boobs look good, but it's part of the looks-good-naked meme.
An actual gf is fine, a completely different thing, not in the competition for the magazine looks-good genre. It's not looks that matter.
Naked actresses are lookwise in the gf category, but without the necessary parallel storyline to be a gf, unless you take it from her storyline character as somebody you'd like to meet.
An actress in the Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler genre is out of place, if anything.
That's funny--this is the example I used in the other thread today (before I saw this post).
Is Lawrence's treatment as described, harassment? Is it abusive? Compared to the stuff that's been alleged against Weinstein it doesn't seem like it.
Whether she'll admit it or not some large portion of the reason Jennifer Lawrence is a star is that she's unusually attractive. Media people select for attractiveness and part of that selection process is probably by necessity humiliating in some way to the people being evaluated. I'm not sure what part of that is actually sexist--that seems like the bargain one must willingly accept in exchange for a shot at making lots of money and/or living a glamorous life by appearing in front of a camera from time to time. It doesn't seem unreasonable, to me.
Now I'll contrast that and say it certainly does seem unreasonable to require potential actresses to submit to the sexual demands of producers or casting directors. It's certainly unreasonable to say that giving in to casting couch demands is just "part of the deal" with making it in Hollywood--especially when we're talking about physical/sexual assault and rape.
I'm not sure to what extent you can argue that selecting for attractiveness is even a "gendered" thing in Hollywood. Tom Cruise is "movie star handsome." There are enormous demands on male movie actors to be extraordinarily physically fit--look at Hugh Jackman's physique in his first role as Wolverine vs. in his more recent ones!
The Media has unrealistic standards of physical beauty/attractiveness. It selects for and enforces those standards in ways that are emotionally unkind. That's not the same thing as saying it's sexist, nor that the unkind and/or humiliating ways those standards are enforced are tantamount to sexual assault or criminal activity.
Lawrence doesn't mention it, but how many women do you think weren't judged "fuckable" enough and thus never got a chance to audition for the roles Lawrence herself got? How many of those women are in fact better actors than Lawrence?
We ask where their parents were.
They were having a celebratory dinner with the parents who allowed their boys to stay overnight at Michael Jackson's.
The cruder way of saying that is: boo fucking hoo, super hot and successful Jennifer Lawrence had to demonstrate how super hot she is, had to listen to someone paying her millions of dollars give their opinion about how she should look (and what she should eat, etc), and had to hear someone say that while some people argue she's not super-hot enough, he personally found her adequately attractive.
That's totally up there with being groped, sexually assaulted, raped, and threatened with social ostracism or career death if those misdeeds are reported. Totally.
Left Bank of the Charles said... Who gets the Harvey for staging the nude lineup?
--
That would be a pretty disgusting statue...handle with gloves.
"he didn't know why everyone thought I was so fat, he thought I was perfectly 'fuckable.'"
"Everyone"?
fivewheels said...Seems like these days the usage a lot of people want to use is: Sex is what you're born as, gender is what you present as. (Sigh.)
Uh, ahem! Gender is what you CHOOSE at any given moment. Get it right or head to the reeducation facility, fivewheels.
Wow. Humanizing women, feminists, and chauvinists, too. Equal and complementary.
What's next? Affirm human evolution. Per chance, Baby Lives Matter?
Sex is genetic. In the human species, it is binary. Gender refers to mental and physical attributes. In humans, gender is masculine and feminine, which are narrow normal distributions centered on sex.
So, is another Slut Walk out of the question?
I haven't had a chance to read much here of what's been said about this Hollywood casting meme, and I assume this has already been said, but is there really much more to it than:
"We've already established what you are, we're just haggling over the price."
Maybe what makes these Hollywood celebrities so special isn't really special at all, and maybe the system is really the magic, nasty though it may be. Lots of people sacrifice much more for far less in other systems. I doubt that anybody is surprised by how it works, except maybe a child star. I bet most would do it again in a second to get back what they had, if they lost it and the option reappeared, which it never does.
Is it just me, or is the entertainment business getting worse at finding beautiful actresses?
Perhaps they are divergent with an acute expression of bigotry that keeps physically appealing women on the casting couch and left deplorables on the cutting room floor.
Selective exclusion. Slice and dice. It could be sounds from the secular cult's celebration of Planned Parenthood or the latest, greatest political congruence ("=").
"When it comes to fuckability, better than nothing is an extremely low standard."
AA: "Wow. I sure don't think so. I would rather have nothing, and I have lived by that code."
That's an interesting construct. In the late 80s, I had an insightful female friend, an English major, who was quite attractive and she told me there were 2 types of girls: fuckable and marriable. And that after spending sufficient time with the former group, I needed to seek out the latter group.
She didn't say there was a 3rd group: non-fuckable and non-marriable. She assumed all women would get married -- if you're homely, find a nice homely guy, who'll treat you right.
In Hollywood, the binary equation for actresses shifted to fuckable or non-fuckable, which obviously is an unhealthy environment
You're taking your clothes off during an interview? Yeah....you're going to get fucked, and you're part of the problem.
Hilarious:
Inside Amy Schumer - "Last F**kable Day - Uncensored".
"Amy stumbles upon a group of her show-business heroes" -- Tina Fey, Patricia Arquette,Julia Louis-Dreyfus -- "celebrating a special occasion": their last day in show business as fuckable young women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPpsI8mWKmg
Diversity, including sex, not character, matters. A progressive faux pas that liberals should not be permitted to live down.
I have worked with any number of professional women who say without prompting (once they trust me) that if all they know about a prospective boss is male or female, they would always choose the male. With a man, even a boor, you know what you're getting and how to deal with it, but too many women seem to enjoy hurting other women in ways both subtle and gross. The man may be after self-gratification, but men rarely have hurting the woman as a primary goal. Not so with too many women.
A little off-topic, but only a little--in her whole public career, the one thing that Hillary Clinton did that was an important and complete success, was head up the operation to slime and discredit and destroy the women whom Bill had abused as Governor, leading up to the 1992 election. She did this with energy, creativity, and intelligence, far more than she ever showed in any later endeavor. Why? Obviously. personal ambition played a role, but it played a role in other things she did not do nearly as well, like run for President (twice). Maybe because her heart was really into destroying other women?
The Inconvenient Truth: "Women Prefer Male Bosses Even More Than Men Do"
"Women fighting for a broader presence in the upper levels of management face at least one very personal obstacle: Most workers don’t want them there. Only one-fifth of people surveyed by Gallup this week said they preferred a female boss over a man. One-third preferred a male boss, and the rest had no preference."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-16/women-dislike-having-female-bosses-more-than-men-do
Women dislike having a female boss in the workplace MORE than men do, study finds
* Nearly 40 per cent of women would rather have a male boss, study found
* In contrast, just 26 per cent of men want to be led by a man in workplace
* Survey, by Gallup, collected responses via phone from 1,032 U.S. adults
* Women's dislike of female bosses could be due to negative perceptions
* They also may mistrust other women or feel that they will be undermined
* This year only 4.8 per cent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women
"Women dislike having a female boss at work even more than men do, a new study has revealed.
Nearly 40 per cent of female workers in America would rather be led by a man, a Gallup survey found.
In contrast, just 26 per cent of men would prefer a male boss, with 58 per cent not caring either way."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2797279/women-dislike-having-female-boss-workplace-men-study-finds.html
Presumably there are many reasons for this (including more than a few idiotic explain-aways); nonetheless, "Everything would be better if there were more female bosses" seems to create some issues among those who would be bossed by them.
I get the feeling that just putting women in charge would end up a lot like Animal Farm.
@Roughcoat, that was really funny!
If there were less nudity in movies, then producers wouldn't have an excuse to demand to see the women naked. But to suggest that would label me as an old-fashioned prude, and besides, I like boobs.
Very nice post
xyore
Well, did she lose the weight, or not?
As to being told she is fuckable, not so sure that is some kind of extreme remark in the showbiz vernacular. Most here *except Chuck) would not use it while sober, but very possible a common expression in the biz. Bet Titus and his peers use it as a generic compliment.
I think I could get behind her more if she shared the picture...
I'm 65 and my Mother worked in offices from the 40's thru the 80's. She always said she would rather work for a office of men then one filled with women. The one newspaper office was mostly women and she said the petty jealousy and "caty attitude" was unbearable. There was a pecking order that had to be strictly observed or there would be hell to pay.
On the fuckability scale, I would place Amy Schumer, somewhere between Ruth Gordon and the entire roster of the Bryn Mawr women's rugby team.
If all this diversity is such a bonus, why don't women (or racial/ethnic minorities) go out a start movie production (or other industry) companies and get on with creating their fabulous greatness. With a significant portion of wealth in this country--much less in Hollywood--in the prog-left SJW camp, there shouldn't be any issue finding capital and willing investors.
We have much to learn from our lefty "superiors" and their Islamic supremacist pals.
Bet Titus and his peers use it as a generic compliment.
10/18/17, 3:11 PM
FM, Titus does not aspire to words of more than two syllables, but between "jerky jerky" and "I would do him," the sentiment is clearly active and blatant.
Well, did she lose the weight, or not?
As to being told she is fuckable, not so sure that is some kind of extreme remark in the showbiz vernacular.
Likely this is finely grained objective data and significant. Who wants to get than objectively designed fuckability/fuckadidshe? index might sort correspondingly with salary/earnings.
I don't understand the thing about female bosses. I've had female bosses and male bosses, and they were all fine. There was nothing different about the women versus the men in their boss roles. I encounter far more male gossips than female gossips, and that's especially odd considering that I encounter many more females than males. I think these surveys are skewed by a small percentage of women. There must be, for example, some percentage of women who prefer male bosses who can be more easily manipulated by sexual allure. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with female bosses.
All of this is designed to distract you from the fact that J-Law put out for Harvey. Too many leads for that not to have happened.
I didn't read the article but I'm assuming Lawrence is talking about her casting in the role of Mystique in the X-Men movies. A role in which she basically walks around painted blue, nude, with pasties, for multiple movies. The only times the Mystique character isn't nude and blue, it's because she has shape-shifted and during that time she is portrayed by other actors (male and female).
Any producer who cast Lawrence for that role without seeing what she looks like nude with pasties would be insane. Any producer who didn't have her do a line-up with her competition wouldn't necessarily be insane but certainly taking a chance.
Just read the article. It was pre-Hunger Games which means it was almost certainly X-Men: First Class. That means she's complaining that in order to get a part where she walks around all the time nude with pasties, the producer made her audition for the part nude with pasties. I think her complaint meets the technical definition of "chutzpah".
And they thought Donald Trump was evil for encouraging Alicia Machado, or whoever that Miss Venezuela was, to lose the weight so she could keep her title.
At least, they said it.
If there's one thing I hate more than another, it's people saying things that they don't mean.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा