Both: What are your thoughts on GC feminists participating in cancel culture?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

Specifically in reference to this situation:

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/08/netflix-apologizes-cuties-marketing-sexualizing-children-1234581341

I saw this on the Pink Pill sub, and I have to admit I'm incredibly disturbed by the number of people who are calling for the movie itself to be removed. They even started up a petition.

If anyone knows about the dangers of cancel culture, it should be gender critical feminists. This is a female-directed film for adults, which was shown at film festivals around the world. Now the movie itself has been attacked by raving mobs who have never seen it, and the poor director's film has been brigaded on the Internet movie database and shows a 1-star rating because people are upset about what they think it contains.

It's fucking ironic that women are partly responsible for a female director's hard work being trashed like this. They haven't even seen the movie to condemn it. Maybe the movie is shit. I haven't seen it, either. But according to reviews, it's criticizing the sexualization of girls and young women, not promoting it.

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

The movie, about an 11-year-old who rebels against her family and joins a “free-spirited dance crew,” i.e., twerking, is accused in the online campaign of sexualizing young girls “for the viewing pleasure of pedophiles.”

I don’t call it “canceling” to point out that young girls do not need any more “role models” in a movie that sexualizes 11-year-old girls.

The French version of the movie poster, reflected appropriately dressed little girls and the American, Netflix version, reflected sexualized, half-dressed little girls.

Shame on Netflix. Our culture sexualizes little girls.

[–]LasagnaRossa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The French version and the American version in comparison:

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/2p3m0h1ls5i51.jpg?w=640&h=853

https://www.repstatic.it/content/nazionale/img/2020/08/20/201710915-9ebeb15c-974b-4e07-a6a0-ae91bf6e350c.jpg

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why couldn’t they use this for marketing instead? Not salacious enough for the US?

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not against calling out Netflix. It's the fact that they're attacking this director and attempting to cancel her film that bothers me. France obviously had appropriate marketing for it.

Netflix is the one that fucked up here, but the director is the one being punished. I'm sure the Netflix executives are male, too. They get off scot free, and the woman who made the movie has to deal with the repercussions of it being attacked. Same old story.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Americans most likely does not know that it was Netflix idea, so they think it is author did so.

And now, after cancel train is started - it is not possible to people to stop, because cancel culture works on random lurking people and "allies", and not on actual activists. So even if people who started it realized they are wrong and appologized - 90% of attackers does not care, as all they want is someone at gunpoint to attack, and that's it.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Probably so. It looks like Netflix's lawyers must have gotten involved because the massive brigading on the Internet movie database stopped. All the negative reviews were deleted.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems they think that good way to remove the problem is - censoring people who are pointing at the problem. "If no one speak about it, it does not exist".

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

It is happening only because of Netflix commercial, which is oversexualizing girls. And deservely so.

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder if most people here think Netflix did it intentionally, or if they were just tone deaf?

I vote for tone deaf, but maybe I'm not cynical enough.

[–]cybitch 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The director should be upset at Netflix here. The point of the film was to condone using young girls like this and yet the marketing was doing exactly that. It's not like they weren't aware of the kind of response this would get - they wanted outrage and attention and revealed how little they cared about the actual issue in the process. It's about time something targeted at women gets this treatment.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not like Netflix cares about social responsibility. They have disgusting pro-rape and pro-domestic violence movies on their platform, like 365 Days.

I don't know if this was intentionally done, but Netflix's actions have no ill effects on the company as a whole. They agree to change the poster, but the director is the one who has to deal with the fallout.

[–]DistantGlimmer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yeah, it seems hypocritical for them to want the movie itself removed just over the ad. On the other hand, I hate all these messages in our culture over-sexualizing young girls and I know you agree with that as well. I think there is a place for putting economic pressure on companies like Netflix not to use this kind of disgusting advertising. It has nothing to do with artistic expression, they know sex sells in advertising and when they use it surrounding children it is particularly revolting. So I hope her movie isn't canceled but I'm glad they were forced to apologize for the ad.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm ashamed to be associated with GC when they target a female director for cancellation because of some shitty thing Netflix did.

I fully agree with the criticism of the Netflix promotional materials. It's just awful that the director herself and her movie are being attacked, and by people who should know better.

[–]DistantGlimmer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Out of curiosity would you still oppose it if the film itself was actually pornographic? Are you coming at this from a free speech absolutist point of view or do you simply feel they mischaracterized the film? I obviously see a lot of problems with cancel culture but I do think there may be a role for consumer pressure to fight the spread of pornographic material which is being shown for profit. I don't think that is the same as going after someone for their political opinions.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Well, obviously if the film were literal child pornography, I'd hope the law would step in.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, but in general I think companies should be able to release films and people can choose to either watch or not watch them according to their preference. Even disgusting movies like 50 Shades of Grey. It's not like I promote theaters or other platforms banning them, even though I believe they're incredibly harmful to women and girls. I'm sorry the films were made at all, but since they were made, adults have a right to watch them if they want to.

In this case, it bothered me because feminists were seemingly unthinkingly boarding the cancel train without even bothering to investigate the movie. If they had, they would have seen the director is a woman, a feminist, and the movie has a feminist message. Allegedly, of course. I haven't seen it yet, just going off the film festival reviews. I'm against mindless jumping on bandwagons, and I would hope GC feminists would be smarter than that, given that we frequently are the targets of such campaigns ourselves.

[–]DistantGlimmer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Your position makes sense, I don't think people should start a campaign like this without watching the film although the advertising certainly did not do it any favors. Maybe I disagree a bit about porn movies. Something like 50 Shades I'd probably join a campaign against. I don't think people's right to watch porn outweighs the damage it does to society and I think people at least have the right to protest it and use our economic power to try to get rid of it (even if it does seem futile right now).

This doesn't mean I support cancel culture. If some silly TRA is giving a speech somewhere I'm not going to try to get that canceled. I don't think it is productive no matter who is doing that but an actual consumer product like a movie is different.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I can agree somewhat with that. Some famous person said the answer to bad speech is more speech. So rather than trying to get 50 Shades or movies like it banned, I'd join a protest to raise awareness of the misogyny and violence it contains. That's if I were a protesting type of person.

But I don't know about demanding platforms not host it. Companies are only concerned about the almighty dollar, not social responsibility. There aren't enough critics to make it a burden on them to host misogynistic content. If there were, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

[–]DistantGlimmer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I get the distinction but in a way by going out and protesting the misogyny in it publically you are presumably trying to get less people to watch the movie so both actions hurt the bottom line for the pornographers. The reality is we're not going to get a movie like that banned in this climate but on principle I think it should be banned.Free speech should not allow people to profit offcontent that hurts and exploits women and children. If theoretically a large theater could get shamed into not showing a movie like 50 sShades and then it start a chain reaction of getting people to question why movies like that are shown as major releases at all I think that is positive activism.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

50 Shades is awful and promotes awful things, but what would be the justification for actually banning it? Like making laws to forbid its release? I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government could tell artists (such as they are) what to write or what to film. It still falls under free speech. Once we start allowing the government to tell us what we can and can't say, then anyone with unpopular views can be silenced.

[–]DistantGlimmer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We already censor porn though. We don't allow actual child porn or really vile abusive porn to be shown in wide release movies even if there would probably be sadly enough of a market to make those films profitable. I don't even care if I kind of line up with conservatives on this one issue. The pornification of society is doing real damage which is more important to me than free speech absolutism. We need to bring back much stricter obscenity laws.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, sure, but that's porn. And pretty much the only illegal ones left are child porn and bestiality.

As far as actual movies go, there's not real censorship, just the MPAA. It's voluntary, but they give ratings, and if you don't have an acceptable rating, then you don't get shown in movie theaters. But your movie can be released on other platforms. I don't want to return to the days of government censorship of movies and books. Would you be in favor of banning romance novels? They have a lot of rape and abuse and other terrible content.

[–]kwallio 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Just because a director is a woman doesn't mean that she's a feminist or that their work deserves an outlet. I don't care that this particular movie has gotten criticism, the crit seems valid to me. Generally speaking cancel culture is about attacking a person and making a person's life difficult because of something, this is a poorly conceived work of art and doesn't have feelings or have to pay the rent. No one is being cancelled.

[–]kwallio 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

ps you sound like a pedo when you are up in arms about a pedo film being called out for pedo crap.

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's insane. This movie has nothing to do with pedophilia, and I am certainly not a fucking pedophile.

You have not seen the movie obviously. You agree with this woman's work being brigaded because of what a bunch of online activists think it says, when none of the people condemning it have even seen it?

“Cuties” director Maïmouna Doucouré says her film, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last Thursday, mirrors her experience as a young girl, when she wanted to be a boy because of the “injustices” towards women she saw around her.

“I was born in France, I grew up there and this movie is about a lot of traditions I saw when I was young, because when I was a child, my dream was to be a boy,” Doucouré told TheWrap’s Sharon Waxman at the festival. “I didn’t want to be a girl because of a lot of injustices I saw around me. Because of that, I was praying [to] God at 6, 7 years old to make me a boy. I saw that the world could be better and easier as a guy.”

She added, “I grew up in both cultures — my parents are from Senegal and I also have the Western culture. I was often torn between both as a woman. Today, I’m fine, I am happy to be a girl of course, but we have a fight to change the mentality of people about the place of women in society, and the movie is about how to become a woman in our society because it’s a bit complicated.”

https://www.thewrap.com/cuties-director-not-free-sundance-video/

[–]kwallio 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your entire post reeks of a "gotcha" on GC feminists, you might want to work on that if you're actually interested in debate (and not being called a pedo ha ha).

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like I said, insane, and also dragging down the pyramid of discussion.

I won't be commenting to you further.

[–]kwallio 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah like pedos aren't going to watch it and slo mo the scenes they like. Its pedobait, which you are stanning for some reason.

[–]kwallio 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No I haven't seen the movie, nor am I going to.

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

To be honest, I'm bothered by American culture for looking at a poster of some young girls dancing and immediately thinking "oh no people will want to f*ck them!" That isn't what comes to my mind when I look at it. How do we handle men at a beach or when the weather is warm?

Sure, they could have chosen a different poster, but I don't think girls should feel like they can't dance because some men are perverts. That is not the right message. This isn't pedophilia.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The poster was apparently a still from the movie. People saw it and went crazy. I certainly don't approve of young girls (or boys) twerking, but you're right that it's problematic that people seem so focused on what pedophiles might do. It's much more of a problem that relentless images of sexualized girls are presented to young girls themselves in children's and teenage media.

[–]luckystar 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I do not agree with cancel culture targeted at individuals, for several reasons:

  1. It assumes that a person who makes a mistake (even a big mistake) is forever irredeemable, which I disagree with. People can and do change.

  2. It shuts down the opportunity for dialogue, which means that neither side involved can learn anything from the other. Very rarely are issues black and white -- there might be one side that is "more correct" but the "incorrect" side might still have valid points, and the "incorrect" side might also be persuaded by the "more correct" side through dialogue.

  3. It alienates and upsets the canceled person, causing them to retreat further into the view they held, seeking more sources that match their confirmation bias.

  4. As a progressive, I don't like the idea of people losing their entire livelihood just for holding the wrong opinions. I think that just because a person might hold some reprehensible views, that doesn't mean they deserve to be unemployed or homeless. I think "cancel culture" is very classist in that the more you need a job, the less likely you are to express an opinion. The only reason why JK Rowling was able to create such a stir is because she has "fuck you money" -- who knows how many women agreed with her but didn't speak out because they need their jobs.

  5. Along those lines, cancel culture has a chilling effect on public discourse in general. I mostly associate with people in the professional white collar class, and basically none of them use social media because the risks to one's career of accidentally saying the wrong thing aren't worth it. Again, this contributes to the siloing effect, as our friends may hold opposing views that we won't be exposed to.

  6. Why is the chilling effect so strong? One reason is because the social zeitgeist around what is "politically correct", especially among progressive circles, is always changing rapidly. Some examples of "new words": BIPOC (instead of POC), gender confirmation surgery (instead of SRS or GRS), Latinx (instead of Latino), these are all upgraded "more politically correct" versions of words that were already considered politically correct previously.

Anyway, about the movie itself, above explains why I don't think the director or anyone involved should be "canceled". As for the movie itself, I'm less concerned about whether or not it gets "canceled" because movies aren't humans. I'd take more of a laissez faire approach. Assuming it's a bad movie, it will flop and that will be the end of it. If the movie actually contains pedophilic content then yes it should be illegal to produce. I don't think any sane person would be opposed to laws against child porn. But I don't see the need to prevent a movie from coming out just because the content is in poor taste, that's a bit too much of a slippery view for my liking.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed on all counts. It's insane how pervasive cancel culture is. I used to think liberals respected free speech, but it seems like just the opposite these days. There are people who would use the government to silence Americans if they could. They're already doing it to women in the UK and Australia, under penalty of law. It's a strange, upside down world when liberals are the same as fascists.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So I watched the movie. People should seriously watch it before condemning it. I haven't watched a lot of foreign language films, let alone ones about black Muslims in France. It's not something I would ever have chosen to watch on my own, but I guess the controversy drew in a bigger audience.

The film itself was a pretty uncomfortable experience. That was the director's point. To shove the premature sexualization of these young girls in the audience's face and get them to question a society that puts these girls in that position. I viewed the movie as a condemnation of our society. These little girls mimic what they're told is adult female sexuality, but they have no idea what they're mimicking. And the main character is caught between the patriarchy of her religion and the equally oppressive sexualization and pornification of girls and young women in mainstream society. She can't escape patriarchy either way.

[–]MarkJefferson 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"It's fucking ironic that women are partly responsible for a female director's hard work being trashed like this."

Women are not some conglomerate; Can you imagine that sentence with "men" and "male" instead?

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, because men are not an oppressed group. What one man does has no effect on the rest because men are considered the default, superior human.