comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Oh Hollywood

Less than 30% of Speaking Roles in Blockbuster Films Last Year Went to Women


And before you think “Well, sure, that’s less than half of what would really be ideal representation, but maybe it’s a sign of progress,” this is the lowest level of gender equity in roles in five years.

According to a report released today by the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, in the 100 top grossing movies of 2012, only 28.4% of characters who spoke a line of dialogue were women, down from 32.8% three years ago.

Here’s some of the numbers, from the LA Times:

When they are on-screen, 31.6% of women are shown wearing sexually revealing clothing, the highest percentage in the five years the USC researchers have been studying the issue.

For teen girls, the number who are provocatively dressed is even higher: 56.6% of teen girl characters in 2012 movies wore sexy clothes, an increase of 20% since 2009.

Movies with a better gender representation and with less objectified female characters tended to be the ones who appeared in movies written or directed by women. In a way, this result could be somewhat predicted by the study’ focus on top grossing films: writing and directing jobs are one of the areas in which the film industry has been even slower to raise the glass ceiling than in speaking roles. However, it’s much easier for a woman to get the writing or directing job on an indie film than the kind of big studio productions that become the industry’s big money makers. Ironic, given the prominent and much publicized success of lady-led blockbuster films these days like The Hunger Games, Twilight, Bridesmaids, Brave, and Snow White and the Huntsman.

Study author Stacy L. Smith says it all comes down to what the industry thinks it knows, not hard facts. “Industry perceptions of the audience drive much of what we see on-screen. There is a perception that movies that pull [a male audience] sell. Given that females go to the movies as much as males, the lack of change is likely due to entrenched ways of thinking and doing business that perpetuate the status quo.”

Hey, at least 28.4% is still 50% better representation for women than that of the US Senate.

(The LA Times via DC Women Kicking Ass.)

TAGS: | |


  • Anonymous

    Sadly not surprising.

  • Anonymous

    Infuriating.

  • http://twitter.com/Super_Widget Joanna

    What is wrong with you, Hollywood!? *shakes fist*

  • Hollyanna

    I used to love movies. Now I am almost completely uninterested.

  • cloudywolf

    Really, TV is where all the most interesting roles are for women these days.

  • http://twitter.com/JMCanuck Jim

    Case in point: “Olympus Has Fallen” – I sat down and thought “Angela Bassett is the FREAKING Secret Service Director. Good god she’s gonna kick ass and leave an assistant to take names.” She had coffee and a danish with Butler and sat behind a desk for the rest of the movie talking into a speaker-phone.

    Waste. Just waste. What really kills me is Bassett brings such gravitas to the screen she could easily slide into any role that didn’t actually require male plumbing. I dunno, maybe she thought “Sh*t, it’s 2 weeks shooting and it’ll pay the mortgage for the next 6mo.”

  • RC_cola

    Not to mention Radha Mitchell. She went from kickass leading lady (Silent Hill, Pitch Black, the Crazies) to obligatory significant other with 5 minutes of screen time. Ugh.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ccharlie182 Charlie Craig

    wtf is wrong with everyone? why do you all think there should be 50% men and 50% women in every occupation? Political correctness is a joke. We are not all equal so we shouldn’t be treated as equals. If you have 100 men and 50 women applying for 50 job positions and the job happened to be something more suited for men such as any job with heavy lifting would you take 25 women and 25 men because you want a “diverse and productive workplace”? if you do you are retarded. Having mixed sex or even mixed race job site is counterproductive. People like working with people of the same sex, culture, language, race, ect. It’s human nature. Look at any school in the western world and you’ll see everyone naturally divide themselves by sex, race, economic status, specific shared interests, ect. You don’t see tables with an equal representation of every race, class, language, ect because that’s human nature. Now as for women in movies, this is a pure demographics issue. Men are the largest demographic for movies so naturally they make more movies for men than for women.. If movies for women and starring women started making more money you would see an immediate increase in the number of women in movies and the number of female protagonists. It’s not a male dominated oppressive act that women are under represented in movies its just business. If you think i’m a racist misogynist then you have been so conditioned into believing the lie of political correctness and equality that you cannot refute what i have said in any way so your only response is down votes and name calling.

  • Infophile

    So much fail… So few linebreaks. (Paragraphs are your friends!) Where to start?

    Well, no one is claiming that there is no difference between men and women, particularly physically (that is to say, trends in difference; there’s no clean dividing line). Men tend to be taller than women, have more upper-body strength, have deeper voices, etc. So, a job that benefits from upper body strength (like a construction worker, as you mentioned) might reasonably get more men than women. On the other hand, a job where shortness is beneficial, such as a flight attendant (which has a strict maximum height limit), might naturally end up with more women than men.

    Mentally, however, things are different. While there are certain strong, obvious physical tendencies that differ between men and women, this isn’t known to be the case for any mental faculty, at least innately. Men and women tend to be socialized far differently, which over time leads to different mental strengths and weaknesses, which may manifest in different occupation percentages in various jobs, but this is still a problem (just a problem with socialization rather than the job market, at least necessarily). Now, there may well be trends in mental faculties that differ between men and women, but the effects of socialization dwarf anything innate, and individual variation is just as big. We’re nowhere close to being able to measure innate ability well enough to make any determination here.

    Finally, I’ll hit your point where you claim that men are the largest demographic for movies. There are a ton of things problematic with this, so I’ll just focus on one. Tell me this: Are movies male-dominated because the market for movies is male-dominated, or is the market for movies male-dominated because most movies are written to appeal to men? Which is to say, you might have cause-and-effect mixed up here. I suspect it’s a lot more complicated than this though; it’s likely a cyclical process that reinforces itself. We’re coming off of a very patriarchal past, where all movies were made by men (and so appealed to men). Now, when people look at who enjoys movies most, they see mostly men, so they write movies to appeal to men, which reinforces the fact that men go out to the movies more ofter, and so on.

    I could say more, but I doubt it’s really worth my time here. If you want me to address another of your points that you think is particularly important though, I’ll oblige.

  • Anonymous

    “If movies for women and starring women started making more money you would see an immediate increase in the number of women in movies and the number of female protagonists.”

    Twilight (1-5), The Hunger Games, Bridesmaids. The first two franchises in particular weren’t just hits, they were MEGA hits. So where are all my female dominated movies, bro?

  • http://www.facebook.com/phil.hartman.142 Phil Hartman

    So what. Affirmative action in Hollywood too? Where will it end?

  • http://twitter.com/Mimekiller Steven Peterson

    Stats make all art better.

  • http://melancholywise.tumblr.com/ Sophie

    Actually he’s completely wrong about film audiences being dominated by men. Despite the fact that the film industry is aimed at men women make up a slight majority of ticket buyers.
    [ http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/mpaa-releases-ticket-stats-and-contrary-to-what-hollywood-wants-us-to-believe-women-do-go-to-the-movies ]
    It’s easy to see from this why films like The Hunger Games and Bridesmaids are such huge hits. There’s this massive audience which is starved for attention.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I don’t know about the rest of you ladies, but Charlie sure has taught me a lot. He’s finally made me see the light, see that there’s no real problem. It’s just all in our politically correct heads–silly lady brains! Always foiling us, especially during that time of the month, AMIRITE, GURLZ?

    Thanks, Charlie. I’d never heard your profound argument before. Especially not from an American man who posts on websites about the decline of the white race (“the racists are the media manipulators who apply double standards in the white world to destroy it.”). Truly, an eye-opener. You should write a book.

  • Anonymous

    A few people in the comments, let’s be honest they’re men, seem to be missing the point. It’s not about apportioning jobs equally along gender lines, although I would argue that apportioning jobs equitably in general – there’s a difference – would be a good place to start, but that’s not it. When half of the human race is dramatically underrepresented in the entertainment industry, there is a problem whether or not you want to acknowledge it.

    This is particularly distressing when we’ve seen a run of blockbusters starring female leads, as well as several blockbuster franchises. I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that Hollywood is effectively another boys club that hasn’t yet fully embraced women. This is stupid because hey Hollwood … women will [continue to] make you tons of money!

    Now I love a straw man as much as the next guy, where would my effigies be without straw men after all, but let’s be honest here boys. This is some serious bullshit.

  • http://melancholywise.tumblr.com/ Sophie

    Yeah and art is so much better with sexism

  • http://melancholywise.tumblr.com/ Sophie

    Women will take over the film industry! All the male actors will be assigned to bit roles, and very few of them will be able to get work after to age of 35, while actresses will carry on working into old age starring alongside younger and younger men. Soon most films starring men will be bland comedies about how they need to lighten up and find the love of a good woman. Society as a whole will change. Young men will start being harassed in the street by large, threatening groups of women. Suddenly men will find that they’re less respected in the workplace. People will start suggesting that they only got their job because they’re pretty. Pretty soon y they will be paid less than women. People will start suggesting that men are just more suited for ‘nurturing roles’ like nursing and housework, and men who speak up will have “GO MAKE ME A SANDWICH” yelled at them by aggressive feminist trolls on the internet. OH THE HUMANITY!

  • http://twitter.com/o6untouchable Jason Atkins

    For the record, I am an extremely pro-equality person. I’m lucky enough to have only had jobs where the gender balance was either near-enough equal or actually tipped in favour of women; my big sister is an extremely successful businesswoman – and indeed, most of the successful businesspeople I’ve ever met are women – and my attitude towards women and employment is basically: “Are they the best person for the job? Y/N”

    Also for the record, I’m not trying to make excuses on Hollywood’s behalf here: I don’t doubt that it’s an incredibly sexist place, and something definitely needs to be done about that.

    That said, statistics are tricky in situations like this, because they take very little context into consideration. It’s easy to sit back and accuse Hollywood of not making enough opportunities for women in movies, and there certainly is a certain truth to that, but it’s worth looking at the 100 top-grossing movies that this study is based on.

    Right at the top you have the Avengers. That is a movie made by Joss Whedon – a man notorious for writing strong female characters and having female-heavy casts – but it only really features three female characters, and there aren’t many other speaking roles for female characters either. Unfortunately, there aren’t many opportunities for female characters either: aside from the Avengers themselves, the only places Whedon could add women in was as agents for SHIELD, members of the NYPD, and people in the crowd. Yes, Whedon could have added in more women roles to balance up the gender statistics, but then you get into difficult territory: he’s trying to show elements from a real / realistic world, so should the movie’s portrayal of gender balance also be real / realistic? Is it Hollywood’s fault that the comic book team upon which the movie is based is skewed towards males, or that very few of those female characters have had the kind of successful solo titles to warrant them being turned into movies?

    It’s a similar story with a lot of movies last year. Just skimming the list, you’ve got, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit, The Hunger Games, Twilight, Amazing Spider-Man, Wreck-It Ralph, Snow White, Les Miserables, Life of Pi – all movies based on source material where Hollywood has very little control over the role that women play in the story. TDKR, Skyfall, 21 Jump Street, Bourne Legacy, Battleship, Expendables 2 – have a heavy bias towards men because the terrorist, police, espionage, or military communities traditionally / realistically have a male bias based on the real world. Brave, Lincoln, Men in Black 3, Django Unchained, Wrath of the Titans and so on have a historical(ish) setting, so the balance of male-to-female characters is influenced by the way things were at that time.

    Also, Hollywood is the epitome of a capitalist business model: they make the movies that they’re confident audiences will watch. The drawback there is that movies with male-heavy casts like The Avengers or The Hobbit tend to appeal to both genders, even if they are marketed towards men. On the other hand, movies with female-heavy casts are usually things like Sex and the City that have a much more female-only appeal. Making things worse, stories like Twilight (which is aimed at women) or romance / romantic comedy movies (generally considered “girly films” by male audiences) often feature one main female character and more than one male love interest. which skews the casting gender balance even further.

    Gender inequality is a terrible thing, but statistics like this are a distraction. They get people focused and worked up about a symptom, when we should be worrying about the disease that’s at the root of it all. The only way Hollywood can possibly react to statistics like these is to start filling movies with token female characters to pad out the statistics. You’ll end up with studios feeling pressured to hire female actors instead of male actors just so that things look good on paper, but it won’t fix anything. Certainly, Hollywood is guilty of a lot of sexist behaviour, but kicking
    them in the pants for something they aren’t entirely culpable for
    doesn’t necessarily help.

    A world without sexism shouldn’t be one where we obsessively ensure that employment percentages accurately match population percentages. It should be a world where no one gives a rats ass about those percentages because they don’t feel they have to.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    When we get to that world without sexism, we’ll get right on that.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I suffer from a debilitating physical condition that makes heavy lifting and exertion pretty much impossible if I want to maintain a minimal amount of mobility?

    You know what I don’t do?

    Apply for jobs where I have to do those things.

    Yes, you can see that by the time children reach school age, our toxic culture has indoctrinated them into a fear of the Other. WTF is your point?

  • http://twitter.com/o6untouchable Jason Atkins

    That world isn’t going to show up on it’s own though, and it won’t get here at all if we cultivate a culture where people are more interested in appeasing the mighty Gods of Statistics than they are in actually fixing the meaningful stuff.

    Statistics don’t always mean what it seems like they mean. They’re fallible, and they can be tricked or manipulated. It’s the same situation with being “carbon neutral”. Often it doesn’t mean that you’ve reduced your carbon emissions to zero; what usually happens is the corporation in question “offsets” their carbon footprint by paying for x acres of trees to be planted. It seems like they’ve done this wonderful, fantastic thing… but because they’ve played the statistics game, their true achievements aren’t nearly as impressive as they seem.

    All Hollywood will do in response to statistics like this this is think “Shit, we need to offset our sexism footprint,” and that fixes nothing.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    So we should just stop pointing out problems cuz no one will solve them?

    I’m sure that’ll help too.

    These statistics AREN’T for Hollywood, they are for consumers, so THEY can demand the change.

  • http://twitter.com/o6untouchable Jason Atkins

    I’m not saying we should stop pointing out problems. The problem is, the statistics are drawing attention to the “wrong” problems. If consumers demand that Hollywood improves it’s percentage of female speaking roles, they will do that, but by fiddling the numbers and giving those roles at the bottom end. If you read the criteria for these statistics, it’s anyone who has spoken at least one line in a movie: so just having background, unimportant characters yelling a single sentence is a solution, as far as the statistics are concerned.

    On the flipside, if Hollywood starts making better use of the actresses they already have – no new people get single-sentence speaking parts, but the actresses who are already speaking get better, more meaningful roles – it won’t affect those statistics, but it may improve the way that women are portrayed in the media. If we start getting more strong female characters and less damsel in distress love interests… that’s an improvement in quality, but it’s not a quantitative improvement. The statistics won’t change. In both cases however, the actresses will be doing more and getting paid more: something else that these particular statistics don’t take into account.

    Which of those two solutions is better: the one that pays attention to the statistics, or the one that looks past the statistics at the real problem?

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Or Hollywood could start using the actresses they already HAVE, and add new ones, because people demand that.

    There were other statistics too, like the fact that 30% of the women in those roles were also sexualized. Should we ignore that as well?

  • http://twitter.com/o6untouchable Jason Atkins

    Certainly, doing both would be preferable.

    The other statistics aren’t without faults either. Why does it matter that 30% of women in those roles were sexualized? All that matters is “too many” women were. If next year, by sheer fluke / by virtue of what films come out, only 25% of women are sexualized, Hollywood will be able to point at these statistics and pretend they’ve improved, when in fact they’ve done nothing.

    Like I keep saying, statistics are a distraction. We shouldn’t need, nor encourage quantitative benchmarks for these sorts of things: we should pressure Hollywood to reduce the sexualization of it’s female characters until they’ve reduced it to a level we are satisfied with.

    We’re not disagreeing on the moral underpinnings here. We both feel that the status quo is bad, and needs improving; and I think we’re on the same page as far as the specifics of what needs to change. I just feel that statistics are the wrong measure in this instance, because they can be so easily manipulated.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    The statistics are not a distraction, they are information.

    It’s what is done with the information that must be addressed, not the information itself.

  • http://twitter.com/o6untouchable Jason Atkins

    Perhaps my issue is less with the statistics themselves, and more with how regularly statistics are misinterpreted / misused.

    They are information, yes. But they are information that should be regarded critically, in context, and with a certain degree of suspicion. The statistics here do not tell the full story, and yet they’re presented without any comment on the big picture. When statistics are used in that way – as they very often are – they are very easily misunderstood.

  • http://www.facebook.com/carly.hunter.9066 Carly Hunter

    Lol I just died best response ever

  • Anonymous

    Hey, he’s got paragraphs now! One step closer to that book, my man!

  • http://www.facebook.com/phil.hartman.142 Phil Hartman

    Many people in this world are disadvantaged to some degree or another. If it’s not your gender, your race, then it’s your age, your height, your class, your neighborhood, your country, your attractiveness your poor grades, your personality, your disability, etc…You can’t make everyone equal no matter how much you try. Some inequality is good. Men and women are not the same. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the opportunity to prove themselves. But giving them a handicap to succeed just lowers the bar. And until we tackle the real inequality in our society (ie massive difference in wealth) we are just wasting our time with affirmative action

  • http://www.facebook.com/phil.hartman.142 Phil Hartman

    Can you actually name a single job where women are paid less than men for the same position?

  • http://www.facebook.com/justin.snyder26 Justin Snyder
  • http://www.facebook.com/justin.snyder26 Justin Snyder

    And if you think 3 years has been enough time to change *anything* you’re wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/phil.hartman.142 Phil Hartman

    That’s not a position. That’s aggregate and can be based on choice of profession rather than actual pay differences.

  • http://twitter.com/o6untouchable Jason Atkins

    First off, thank you for taking the time to write such a lengthy and well-thought-out response. I genuinely appreciate you taking the effort to do so: sadly when it comes to discussions on the internet, not everyone is willing to do that. That said, since there is a lot to reply to there, you’ll have to forgive me if I forget anything on the first time through!

    Right off the bat, I want to stress the fact that at no point did I accuse these statistics of being false. Perhaps that’s the result of a failure to communicate on my part, but I am in no way questioning the accuracy of these statistics, nor am I accusing the people responsible of any kind of tampering or malicious intent. I did not need to “look for evidence of statistic twisting”, because quite frankly I do not think that this has taken place.

    What I’m questioning is how useful these statistics are. As a shocking indication of how unbalanced actress employment in Hollywood is, this number certainly does the job. However, as far as being a statistical benchmark goes, it’s a little iffy for a variety of reasons.

    1. Quality of Role

    Speaking one sentence is not a logical threshold, because of how the film industry works. At the bottom rung of the ladder, you’ve got background extras who appear in crowd scenes, walking down corridors, and those sorts of things. Usually a casting director will send a request for what they need to an agency, the agency will send back pictures, and the casting team will OK the ones who look the part. These extras all get paid a flat rate. However, if the background extra is needed to yell out a line from a crowd, or if they say nothing but are portraying someone with a name (a patient in a hospital bed who other cast members talk about, etc), they become a “featured extra”, and get paid a little extra. The SHIELD Agent in the Avengers playing Galaga would be a featured extra, and thus probably got paid a little more than the background extra he was sitting next to. Already there’s a problem with the statistics, because they only incorporate the speaking featured extras, despite the fact that the non-speaking featured extras are paid largely the same.

    The next rung up the acting ladder involves you actually going to an audition, reading for a role, and specifically being cast by the casting directors. The jump between being a featured extra and being actually cast for a part is a big one, and probably represents a better criteria to calculate statistics. With featured extras, particularly when it comes to one-liners in crowd scenes, gender is largely irrelevant: it doesn’t matter is the person yelling “Hey, watch out!” is a guy or a girl. Roles that specifically need to be cast are a much better indication of gender equality, since it refers to the quantity of roles for women that are actually in the script.

    A further problem is that the difference between the bottom and top ends of the “I got picked by a casting director” scale is not linear. Last Saturday’s episode on Doctor Who featured a total of (if memory serves) ten speaking roles. Two of those roles were the main characters: the Doctor and Clara, who had roughly the same amount of dialogue. Two of the roles were children: a boy and a girl. There were two “civilians” (both male) and then four soldiers (50:50). However, the girl was the elder of the two children so did and said more. Also, one of the female soldiers was played by a relatively well-known British actress who had a name, whereas the two male soldiers did not; her role was perhaps the fourth most important in terms of the story. The statistics would tell you that only 40% of the cast was female (less, if you take into account that all of the non-speaking extras dressed as Cybermen were male), but the truth is that women occupied about half of the important roles in the story. Statistics aren’t able to take into account qualitative factors like that.

    2. Representation of Reality

    As you rightly pointed out, “The question isn’t why we can’t have more women in the movies about
    terrorist, police, military, and espionage communities; it is why do the
    vast, vast majority of movies have to be about those communities.” The answer to this is very simple: because that’s what audiences want to watch.

    You claimed that Hollywood doesn’t seem to realise that women go to movies: on the contrary, it’s the fact that women go to movies that is causing the problem. We’re here on a geek culture website, so have a quick skim over the Top 100 movies from last year. How many of those are “geek movies” like The Avengers, TDKR, The Hobbit and so on that appeal equally to both genders? It’s not really a surprise that movies like that are right up at the top of the list, because they appeal to both genders. Hollywood does make movies that are targeted at women, but they’re designed to only appeal to one gender, so they have half the potential audience: that’s not enough people to earn enough box office to get up to the top of the list.

    Again, this is a case of statistics being “inaccurate” because they don’t take context into account. It might be more beneficial to factor in the gender distribution of audiences somehow, or to use some criteria other than box office gross to choose the sample for analysis.

    3. Sample Size + Margin of Error

    These statistics are only looking at 100 movies: that is an extremely small sample size. What it means is that every 1% represents a single speaking part – one sentence – per movie. Dropping from 32.8% to 28.4% seems like a really dramatic change, but when you think about it, it actually only represents four or five speaking parts per movie. The problem here is twofold.

    First off, it makes it incredibly easy to manipulate. All Hollywood needs to do is add in five extra one-liners into each of it’s movies, and you’ll bump that 28.4% all the way up to 33.4%. Twenty random one-liners, and you’re up to 48.4%. If you give all of your one-liner / featured extra roles to women instead of men, it’s even easier. Hollywood is a business, and increasing the number of featured extras is an extremely cheap way of “solving” the problem, at least as far as the quoted statistics are concerned.

    The second problem is that the sample size it too small to compensate for movies with really large male casts. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey features one female speaking part (as far as I can remember): Galadriel’s appearance at Rivendell, a scene that isn’t even in the book. The remainder of the cast, which features thirteen Dwarves, three speaking Hobbits (Bilbo twice), three Wizards, three Ogres, a bunch of Goblins, a Necromancer, at least two speaking male Elves, a few speaking Orcs… lets ballpark that at around thirty speaking parts, one of which is female. That alone is a massive impact on the gender balance of the top 100 movies from last year; and that isn’t Hollywood’s fault. The Avengers was man-heavy because of the source material; TDKR had a lot of male speaking parts because of the heavy bias towards police and terrorists. Even Twilight, a movie written by a woman for women, features a mostly male cast because of sex appeal.

    Those four movies alone are enough to account for the drop in gender balance versus three years ago: Hollywood hasn’t done anything worse or wrong to cause that… they’re just adapting source material that is popular to both genders (with the exception of Twilight, which is specifically female-focused), as evidenced by the extremely high box office takings.

    There are more problems, but those are the main ones.

    I’m not telling people to ignore every single statistic that they here. My fear in this instance though is that the public and the media are going to latch on to the easy-to-remember percentages that have been quoted here without taking the time to read the report in full. In this instance (as in others), the statistics are clouding the “truth”.

    That doesn’t mean the statistics are wrong… they’re just not “right enough” to be used as a benchmark for social change. This is the kind of situation where we shouldn’t need statistics. Gender equality shouldn’t be a numerical, quantitative thing: it’s an inherently subjective and qualitative one. These statistics are a fallible loophole that Hollywood can and will exploit with ease: we would be better off demanding change until it becomes socially and morally acceptable, not until the numbers all line up.

  • http://twitter.com/Super_Widget Joanna

    I thought imagination and originality made art better. O.o

  • Anonymous

    If they keep going that way, they’ll end up having to nominate animated character in the Lead Actress category at the Oscars.

  • http://twitter.com/Mimekiller Steven Peterson

    Citizen, please report your imagination to the proper dream authorities to make sure your dreams represent the diverse nature of this country.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ccharlie182 Charlie Craig

    ahhh god these are the exact responses i was expecting. you give like 3 movies in a decade that made money at the box office, two of which are adaptations of books that were popular before the movies were released. One person attacked grammar and the absence of paragraphs from my comment post. Another used sarcasm and thought they were clever while not actually refuting anything i have said. katana made a somewhat valid point but all the examples were recent movies which reflect the recent increase in the number of female movie goers, i’m not taking about anual statistics i’m talking about generational trends, the number of movie goers fluctuates each year based on what titles are out. That fact that there are entire movie anthologies being targeted entirely at women shows the generational trend thats going to continue to grow. Men will watch just about any generic action flick or geeky book adaptation that comes in theatres. Movies for men are focused around male protagonists killing things and usually getting the girl. Movies for women are more emotional and love is the most common motif. Then theres movies that are targeted at both sexes like hunger games which features the classical plot line about a group of people forced to kill each other in a sick game which has been recycled in so many different settings, not that hunger games is a bad movie. But theres a reason why theres going to be a 7th star wars, and more star trek, and lotr spin offs, and war films, movies about aliens and westerns and all those male dominated generes is because it sells and hollywood is out of ideas so they just remake the same movies over and over and milk every franchise until they don’t pay off. Men and women have always had different roles in society and the idea that women should be equal in every respect is just impossible to implement and its a very modern idea that is part of the political correctness movement that started in the 60′s and it’s goal is to completely reverse the status quo, not to give everyone a fair and equal say in society without social repercussions such as the clear bias and hate every one of you pc’s feel towards people like myself who see through the b.s. we’ve been spoon fed since birth. I’m not some enlightened superior being by any means, i just used common sense and did my research. Here’s a clear example of the feminist element of the zeitgeist; the day time trash talk show “Maury” Half the episodes go as follows “And welcome Ashley to the show everyone, ashley… audience claps and cheers as she comes on stage, “This is Ashley’s 12th appearance on our show because she’s already had 11 paternity tests from 11 different men and she still doesn’t know who her babies daddy is so he can pay child support…. audience “awwww poor Ashley” then they show the video of #12 and he says “I was with her one time and look she’s obviously a F%($*ing slut if she was with 12 different guys within a few weeks. I doubt im the father but if i am i’ll take care of it i guess” then the guy comes out and the audience boos and screams, they couldn’t show that they hate this man who doubts a girl who fucked a dozen guys a week might have his kid.. results comes in “Ashley in the case of 4 month old tony….. he is not the father.” immediately the guy jumps up like tigger and usually says something like this “I knew it i knew it ! oh slut!” that immediately gets the crowd pissed off at the man so they boo him more. That is the bias against men thats so clearly sexist that it makes me sick. The idea that all men were sexist pigs in the past and they oppressed women en masse so now everything has to be reversed. Men have to be oppressed, but not just men white men but obviously the white man is the devil behind all the worlds problems and every injustice that’s ever occurred was directly or indirectly the result of white men. Every Inequity is our responsibility. Everything that ever happens is our fault. Do you think multiculturalism and political correctness will be a good thing for women in the long run? how about in 100 years when islam is the worlds dominant religion and women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe or risk death. A world where women can’t even drive, vote, or go to the same schools as men. Do you think your not perpetuating one segment of this divide and conquer scheme that the communists have used to destroy the west? you are, most of you don’t do it consciously of course. It’s been programmed into you since birth by years education(indoctrination) If you’ve read the manifesto you’ll know that one of the main strategies for overthrowing a capitalist regime is to infiltrate the education system, where you spend 8 hours a day 5 days a week, 6 in some countries repeating everything you’re told to believe until you really believe it, then they make you go home and spend hours of your free time continuing to memorize they propaganda. I’ve really said all i can on the subject, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, not that horses were raised to hate water.