I keep trying to think of an ironic way to use the phrase you so despise that would otherwise incite you to violence. I can’t think of a single thing.

This is a dumb example of appreciating art despite sexism, but I’ve been watching “The Smurfs” lately. Smurfette is one of the most horribly demeaning portrayals of a woman I have seen in a cartoon (worse than anything from Disney, even) and the whole episode behind her creation is horrifying. Even more horrifying is the artist’s perspective on women (from this website http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msmurfs.htm): Peyo began by saying that she was “very feminine.” They asked him to be more specific, so he went on to say: “She is pretty, blonde, she has all the characteristics of women…” Knowing the feminist spirit in the U.S.A., I diplomatically translated this as “all the qualities.” I was banking on the fact that Peyo did not understand what I was saying (in English) and the others did not understand what he was trying to say. So naturally they asked him to expand. So he kept on going with: “She seduces, she uses trickery rather than force to get results. She is incapable of telling a joke without blowing the punch line. She is a blabbermouth but only makes superficial comments. She is constantly creating enormous problems for the Smurfs but always manages to blame it on someone else.” I did my best to minimize the sexist nature of this description, but one of the participants at the meeting asked: “Would she at least be able, when the Smurfs are in danger, to take a decision that can save them?” When I translated this to Peyo, he looked astounded. “Come on now, do they expect me to make her a (female) gym teacher?” I obviously did not translate this remark. [Translation by Valteron]

Though I don’t intend to have children, I think a proactive approach to any television and movie viewing is essential to helping children question and consider the perspectives they see rather than absorbing and internalizing them. In other words, talk about the shit you watch with them or it will influence them unduly. There are valuable lessons and stories in the show despite my moral concerns about other aspects of it.

But the real issue here is what you’ve suggested—that a work of art can’t be sexist, racist, classist, whatever-ist without the P.C. police getting annoying and sounding ridiculous. I certainly believe in writing that aims at social progress and I think political art is potent and important. And I don’t put myself in with those on the other end of the spectrum who just want “art for art’s sake,” suggesting that political opinions and art cannot both be important parts of something at the same time. I hope I never become so closed off that I can’t appreciate the presentation of a perspective that is different from my own. I hope I am never shallow enough to plunk myself or anyone else in front of a television or movie screen without questioning and considering both the artistic merit and the morality presented, but seeing them as separate aspects of the work.

If I disagree with stereotypical characters or some aspect of morality in the film or show, that doesn’t mean it should not exist or never be portrayed. How absurd and reductionist! But this is from a woman who netflixed “The Smurfs” and no longer has a young nephew nearby as an excuse, who considers the episode “Poet’s Writer’s Block” on the plight of Poet Smurf as profound and wonderful as any number of actual poems about writer’s block.

“I keep trying to think of an ironic way to use the phrase you so despise that would otherwise incite you to violence. I can’t think of a single thing.”

I found this very funny. It also made me realize that—as always—I didn’t express my meaning very well. (No: that’s not quite accurate. I could have meant something truer.) “Box-office clout” is a term that is patently risible; its unimportance in terms of art is so staggering (and art so staggeringly important) that the mere mention of it in discussing George Clooney set me into a rage. What I should have meant was that people should be embarrassed to use money-making as an important criterion of success.

Re: Michael Clayton. I do think it’s important that, in this instance, I don’t think it’s possible to legitimately interpret the movie to be sexist in the way that Mr. Kottke argues. It’s an incorrect reading.

I will say, however, that I think it’s perfectly legitimate to be upset about sexism (or racism or evil of any kind) in art. Frankly, your articulation of how to analyze the entire content of such art seems to me quite right and very well said.

I will also say that in the last six months, I’ve been feeling more sensitive to sexism than I have in the past. It’s partially some of the sexism that has come out because of the Democratic nomination process. (As someone who believes much of the antipathy towards the Clintons is not only legitimate, but important to evangelize, the appearance of sexism within many criticisms is frightening.) Whatever the reasons, I’ve grown uncomfortable with hearing the term “bitch” at all. Everyone thinks it’s funny right now to apply the word to men, especially. But if the metaphor is still fundamentally related to an idea of femininity, isn’t the sexism unchanged? I’ve even begun to wonder if the general exclamation “fuck that” isn’t inextricably tied to a violent act toward women. Dismissing something is being compared, metaphorically, to exacting a selfish and hostile sexual act, something within a male to female paradigm.

But! Maybe I’m getting too sensitive.

Do we ever express our meaning very well? I’ve yet to find an occasion when I felt I managed this. I agree with you that profit should not be the measure of success.

In my opinion, there’s an incorrect reading going on right now that includes a sexism accusation in a discussion of the latest XKCD comic: http://syndicated.livejournal.com/xkcd_rss/95628.html?page=2#comments It’s basically the threads at the top with mollydot. While a comic can be less obvious in its implications than a film, I find this strip to be a delightful representation of a logical fallacy taken to extremes rather than some horrible example of sexism. I haven’t seen “Michael Clayton” or any movie not available on DVD lately, so I really can’t comment on Kottke’s perspective. As for the woman not having a breakdown, that’s not stereotypically female in dominant American culture, but the woman holding things together while men go to jail, are abusive, and use drugs is stereotypical in representations of African American culture dating back to slavery and the woman holding things together is certainly stereotypical in other cultures as well. Stereotypically female really depends on the perspective the film is working within. I’d have to know more about the film and characters to say what’s going on in the instance you’ve addressed. I take your posts sometimes and go off on a tangent that only addresses part of what you’ve posted. I’ve certainly done so this time, but then who isn’t guilty of this?

Regarding fuck: I do see your point and also consider it disturbing that a sexual verb has become a verb for indifference, disdain, failure (fuck up), and so on. But I don’t think you’re giving the verb enough credit in suggesting that it is necessarily something done to women or limited to male-female interaction. You need only look at the OED to see it’s usage was more complex than this from its origins.

I just noticed that the movie in question is available on DVD. Oops.

I too have difficulty with the term bitch. I’ll add another element to the sexism/victimization concern: the tyranny present in any soul that uses the term.

However, I think Nate’s overthinking the phrase “fuck that.” That verb is, as Amanda points out, quite versatile. Its violence is not essentially sexual, especially when used on neuter (pro)nouns.