Yes, agree with CLM 100%. This media circus (more like a mindless lynch mob) is both disgusting and scary.
Yeah nice going Paul. How dare he have a kid with a full grown adult younger then him?
Except the image that you posted above isn't the photo that was banned. This is the photo that was banned. (I mean, not that I'm offended by that either, but, you know.)
You should start that blog! It would be really interesting.
I came here to say just this. Thanks for saving me time!
THANK YOU, yes.
More like frustrated that Jezebel's click bait crap of late is no better than tabloids.
Oh my fucking god, right?! THIS IS JUST COLOR-CORRECTION. JESUS CHRIST.
Color correction really isn't that big of a deal.
The study you cite doesn't entirely undercut Sorkin's point, alas. He's talking about studio green-lights — and if you look at any year's Top 250 films, you'll see the list includes tons of indie/non-commerical releases... stuff that grossed US$500K playing on a few dozen screens, tops.
The only movies I can think of that didn't have any female characters are the ones where it wouldn't have been relevant or appropriate. Historical war movies, that kind of thing. I suppose we could have had more female infantry officers in Saving Private Ryan to be more progressive, but the audience can only suspend…
Listen, if any of the above leads people to believe that I am not mesmerized by pictures of Brando and Newman or that I don't creepily glance at men out of the corner of my eye in the gym, I apologize. I am and I do. But I usually do it in a "sigh, god that's nice to look at" way rather than a "this person is…
Please don't take the well-documented hypocrisy of many Jez writers as typical of most women, or even most feminists. Plenty of us find cuddly dudes attractive, find Hollywood beauty standards cold and alienating for both genders, and don't think the best way to combat old oppressions is by perpetuating new ones.
Now go away - Why, because I pointed out a flawed article on an otherwise brilliant website? If the article was "Women have been sexuallized in media X amount more times then men," then there is something to this. What we have instead is a reason to show off the abs of a bunch of dudes, read some of the comments…
It's still ego-centrism.
Basically you're saying 'our ideal men are strong, dominant, alpha, etc', therefore men should accept strong, dominant alpha women as their ideal as well. The traits we find sexy and ideal should be the traits you find sexy and ideal. It's a bullshit stance to have.
It doesn't work that way. Men…
I'd have to agree. I don't have a problem with hot guys OR girls on tv/movies, but trying to rationalize liking one while condemning the other is pretty hypocritical.
This article is so fucking depressing. How is the objectification of men a false equivalency? What is the difference between breasts and butts and abs and biceps? They are all sexualized body parts. What an anti-feminist article this is. I'm a fat dude, who has been desperately trying to achieve an inguinal crease to…
Jesus, the hypocrisy of this issue....ugh. Just take the entire end of your article and reverse the gender and you will see how a majority of men view sexualized women under similar circumstances.
But the objectification of men is a false equivalency to the objectification of women, because what's being fetishized is strength. Virility, capability, vigor, fortitude. Power.