King Richard is sexist?

[spikepipsqueak]

My answer to that would be that if a woman authors a work of art and anyone wants to tell her that, because she is a woman, that work of art should have been different and her choices are not good enough, then that is indeed unacknowledged sexist underpinnings limiting women's choices.

Jessica Taylor needs to think through her own attitudes and control issues.

 

[Toni]

I'm... a bit confused as to why you think this movie could not, in fact, be sexist. Just because two women were involved in its production? If taking down the patriarchy is that easy, we're in good shape lol.

The original Tweet, and its followups, indicates that Taylor's problem is not that there is sexist content in the movie, but the existence of the movie itself is the problem. She says 'I genuinely didn't expect a film about two of the most powerful, successful and amazing black female athletes to be named after a man, or centre a man.'

She does not seem to be aware of the incoherence of her own statement. The film is not about black female athletes. It's about Richard Williams. She says it herself: it centres a man. What Taylor feels so threatened by is that a number of people, including Venus and Serena Williams, thought a movie about their father was worth telling and they told it.

She has a good point: most viewers would prefer and expect a movie to be about the Williams sisters, not their father. In fact, the first time my husband saw the promo for the movie, he asked why we’d care about the dad when we could learn more about the sisters…BTW, we both like Will Smith pretty well even if we don’t love all his films.

But apparently this is the story the Williams sisters wanted told. https://www.gq.com/story/will-smith-november-cover-profile/amp

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My answer to that would be that if a woman authors a work of art and anyone wants to tell her that, because she is a woman, that work of art should have been different and her choices are not good enough, then that is indeed unacknowledged sexist underpinnings limiting women's choices.

Jessica Taylor needs to think through her own attitudes and control issues.

To be clear, I have no dog in the fight and kind of don't care, but let's review what's been said and what I wrote.

1. The op seems to be: some nobody on the Internet criticized a movie that made some famous women's father the center of attention as being sexist. The op next seems to imply that because the famous women themselves were producing or created the story that it couldn't be sexist.
2. I commented skeptically that a thing can't be sexist merely because a woman has created it. I am not arguing about this specific case but instead the principle.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

My answer to that would be that if a woman authors a work of art and anyone wants to tell her that, because she is a woman, that work of art should have been different and her choices are not good enough, then that is indeed unacknowledged sexist underpinnings limiting women's choices.

Jessica Taylor needs to think through her own attitudes and control issues.

I'm not trying to limit your choices just because I say that I would feel better if more films had dragon representation, though. If I got my way, all films would have dragon representation. Maybe I should not get my way all the time, but if I do not try all the time, then I will never get my way at all.

If we live in a democracy, is it taking away other people's right to vote if I vote one way, rather than the other? Should I be obligated to sit on the fence about every issue and never actually think about either my own vested interests or my own personal vision about what way of life I think is going to fill me with eudaimonia?

I do not think that the athletes were necessarily wrong to want to make a film about their dad, but I also do not think that Dr. Taylor was wrong to say that she felt disappointed that it was not about the athletes, themselves. Dr. Taylor has a natural vested interest, and in her subjective universe, her point-of-view is a valid one. Her point-of-view is not the only valid point-of-view, but it is nevertheless a valid point-of-view.

I have a nephew that has cystic fibrosis, so I would just LOVE to see more money invested in a cure for cystic fibrosis. Other people say, "Sigma, there are other needs, sorry," but I am still going to say I want more money for cystic fibrosis. My vested interest is justifiable, even though the rest of the nation is also justified in balancing that with other interests.

 

[Arctish]

I'm... a bit confused as to why you think this movie could not, in fact, be sexist. Just because two women were involved in its production? If taking down the patriarchy is that easy, we're in good shape lol.

The original Tweet, and its followups, indicates that Taylor's problem is not that there is sexist content in the movie, but the existence of the movie itself is the problem. She says 'I genuinely didn't expect a film about two of the most powerful, successful and amazing black female athletes to be named after a man, or centre a man.'

She does not seem to be aware of the incoherence of her own statement. The film is not about black female athletes. It's about Richard Williams. She says it herself: it centres a man. What Taylor feels so threatened by is that a number of people, including Venus and Serena Williams, thought a movie about their father was worth telling and they told it.

What makes you say she feels threatened?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

My answer to that would be that if a woman authors a work of art and anyone wants to tell her that, because she is a woman, that work of art should have been different and her choices are not good enough, then that is indeed unacknowledged sexist underpinnings limiting women's choices.

Jessica Taylor needs to think through her own attitudes and control issues.

To be clear, I have no dog in the fight and kind of don't care, but let's review what's been said and what I wrote.

1. The op seems to be: some nobody on the Internet criticized a movie that made some famous women's father the center of attention as being sexist. The op next seems to imply that because the famous women themselves were producing or created the story that it couldn't be sexist.
2. I commented skeptically that a thing can't be sexist merely because a woman has created it. I am not arguing about this specific case but instead the principle.

Yeah, I get that. Same principle as "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

But in this specific case Taylor is telling 2 women that they should have made choices according to her concepts.

I wish I could find that irony meter image.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

My answer to that would be that if a woman authors a work of art and anyone wants to tell her that, because she is a woman, that work of art should have been different and her choices are not good enough, then that is indeed unacknowledged sexist underpinnings limiting women's choices.

Jessica Taylor needs to think through her own attitudes and control issues.

To be clear, I have no dog in the fight and kind of don't care, but let's review what's been said and what I wrote.

1. The op seems to be: some nobody on the Internet criticized a movie that made some famous women's father the center of attention as being sexist. The op next seems to imply that because the famous women themselves were producing or created the story that it couldn't be sexist.
2. I commented skeptically that a thing can't be sexist merely because a woman has created it. I am not arguing about this specific case but instead the principle.

Yeah, I get that. Same principle as "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

But in this specific case Taylor is telling 2 women that they should have made choices according to her concepts.

I wish I could find that irony meter image.

Dr. Taylor is not obligated to find such a film inspiring, though. So two female athletes made a movie about their dad: fine, but is everybody suddenly obligated to care deeply about their private family life? Is everybody obligated to care what a great guy they think their dad is?

That doesn't mean it's a bad film, but it's obviously intended for a specific niche audience.

So Dr. Taylor wants to see a movie that is meant for people like her. That's fine. Maybe somebody will notice that she feels left out, and they will make another film that is more inspiring to the Dr. Taylors out there, who might have succeeded at life IN SPITE of their moms and dads dissing them for having dreams.

I had a shit relationship with my own blood relatives. Look, it wasn't their fault, but it was their fault, at the same time. My father had a brain tumor, and my mother's side of the family has a propensity for alcoholism, which makes act like them "mean drunks." The behavior problems caused by my father's brain tumor combined with ME being neurodivergent drove her to drink heavily, which made her act like an atrocious troll, which made my neurodivergence take a toxic route (under ideal conditions, we can be gifted, but we are like a high performance car that blows up if you put the wrong gasoline in it. I just blew up). Well, my family life was actually a waking nightmare. They were not people that loved me and supported me. They were people that I barely survived living with. My quality of life is not terrible, right now, but I got there in spite of them, not thanks to them. I don't want to make a movie to glorify my father. Even though I understand it wasn't his fault he was the way he was, I would sincerely rather stab him with a knife or run him over with a truck than do anything to glorify his reputation.

Not all of us are going to be able to relate to a film about someone's "dear, old dad." I get why some people have great relationships with their families, and if that was the experience those two athletes had when they were little girls, I don't think they're doing anything wrong. It's just a type of story that is hard for me to think about because it just makes me feel sad and broken.

Maybe the world shouldn't run itself based only on Dr. Taylor's preferences, but there are some people that want to deprive her of the right to even have a preference.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I am sorry to hear those elements of your personal story and really pleased to know that you have reached a place of some equilibrium. I can identify with some of that, time and experience help, eh?

In your own case I'm sure you know just not to go to films that will push your buttons.

People are making films all the time documenting the lives of other people they consider important to them.

My objection to Taylor is simple. We are all entitled to have preferences and talk about them in conversations. In social media or real life.

My preference is that Taylor express her film preferences as such. Not directives to women on the choices they are permitted to make.

 

[Metaphor]

She has a good point: most viewers would prefer and expect a movie to be about the Williams sisters, not their father.

She has no point. This isn't the movie she wanted. That doesn't mean the movie is problematic. Nor do you have any evidence about what 'most viewers' prefer or expect. Art is not a democracy and artists do not have to cater to making a movie with the widest possible commercial appeal.

In fact, the first time my husband saw the promo for the movie, he asked why we’d care about the dad when we could learn more about the sisters…

I don't know, Toni. Why didn't your husband care about the father character? Why should the movie be about Venus and Serena? Is a movie about positive fatherhood a story not worth telling unless it centres characters other than fathers?

 

[Metaphor]

What makes you say she feels threatened?

Perhaps 'threatened' is the wrong characterisation. She felt annoyed enough that some particular artistic work was not crafted to her liking, and implied that work to be problematic because of it. I find her thinking to be very muddled. It's like she almost gets it. She almost gets that it's not a movie about Venus and Serena Williams.

I can imagine a different movie about a parent pushing his children to succeed--a movie about the patriarch of the Jackson family. It would be, in my opinion, ridiculous to object to such a movie on the basis that it centred an (anti)hero like Joe Jackson, instead of being 'about' Michael or Janet. The movie is about whatever the writers, directors and creatives decide it is about.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I am sorry to hear those elements of your personal story and really pleased to know that you have reached a place of some equilibrium. I can identify with some of that, time and experience help, eh?

In your own case I'm sure you know just not to go to films that will push your buttons.

People are making films all the time documenting the lives of other people they consider important to them.

My objection to Taylor is simple. We are all entitled to have preferences and talk about them in conversations. In social media or real life.

My preference is that Taylor express her film preferences as such. Not directives to women on the choices they are permitted to make.

I do not think it would have made a difference if she had. I think the people that have gone on the attack against her have an axe to grind, in general, with feminists, and she makes a convenient punching-bag.

I have seen self-styled "feminists" that actually did come off as bullies, but she did no such thing.

I can relate with her because I get attacked just for talking about the fact that I am transgender. According to some people's thinking, I am taking away their "freedom of speech" just by saying I identify as a woman. For a little while, it was easy to come out as transgender, but over the past year, I've seen a new push to try to silence us and terrorize us just because we exist.

It looks like somebody is getting treated in the same way just because they identify as feminist.

 

[Toni]

She has a good point: most viewers would prefer and expect a movie to be about the Williams sisters, not their father.

She has no point. This isn't the movie she wanted. That doesn't mean the movie is problematic. Nor do you have any evidence about what 'most viewers' prefer or expect. Art is not a democracy and artists do not have to cater to making a movie with the widest possible commercial appeal.

In fact, the first time my husband saw the promo for the movie, he asked why we’d care about the dad when we could learn more about the sisters…

I don't know, Toni. Why didn't your husband care about the father character? Why should the movie be about Venus and Serena? Is a movie about positive fatherhood a story not worth telling unless it centres characters other than fathers?

I can’t speak for my husband (except to repeat what he says when he initially saw the promos) but most people are much more familiar with the sisters and their careers.

I don’t think anyone is terribly curious about Paul McCartney’s mother, for instance, or George Harrison’s. Or Andre Agasse’s parents or Arthur Ashes’.

It seems that Mr. Williams was particularly instrumental in shaping his daughter’s careers, something that I never gave much thought to—not being much of a sports fan. But it seems that the daughters saw this as an homage to their beloved father. Which makes sense to them but is not necessarily intuitively obvious to the general public, who might be very interested in the Williams’ dusters formative years but might have have assumed it would be centered on their story and less obvious that it be centered on their father.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Toni

Right. I really have no problem with the ladies, themselves, except that I don't care a rat's ass about their dad. I'm glad they do. They are supposed to. Maybe some of their most devoted fans also care about their dad. I don't think they really did anything wrong.

The attacks against Dr. Taylor seem to be particularly contrived, though.

 

[Toni]

@Toni

Right. I really have no problem with the ladies, themselves, except that I don't care a rat's ass about their dad. I'm glad they do. They are supposed to. Maybe some of their most devoted fans also care about their dad. I don't think they really did anything wrong.

The attacks against Dr. Taylor seem to be particularly contrived, though.

Yes, I agree. But some people do seem intent on sowing divisions between women.

It is an interesting take, though, to tell the story of a parent who was so instrumental in their success. That sort of story has been told about high school teachers and principals but rarely about parents.

 

[TomC]

Speaking as someone who doesn't care about sports or celebrities or movies,

I don't care about this movie. The only reason I might buy a ticket is the angle, a movie about a dad who helped propel a couple of black girls into international stardom. The Williams sisters themselves have been so much a media thing, for so long, I stopped caring about them decades ago. I got tired of hearing about them.
Same with Larry Bird and Brad Pitt and JK Rowlings, I just don't care that much. Their personal lives have been done so much by the media I would never pay to learn more.

The Williams sister's dad is much more interesting to me.
Which still isn't very interesting. And some movie reviewer being upset doesn't change that.
Which gets to my point. If a B grade movie about ex-celebrities needs a boost, what better way for getting publicity than a politically correct blogster panning the movie? I would never have heard of this movie if a bad review hadn't made the cut on IIDB.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

Just discovered this thread and thought it might be about Richard the Lion-Hearted. Then wondered why it wasn't in History ..........

 

[J842P]

It looks like somebody is getting treated in the same way just because they identify as feminist.

Nah, it's pretty simple. She said something stupid. It's ok, people say stupid things all the time. Then she got dragged on twitter. Again, that happens.

 

[Politesse]

Just discovered this thread and thought it might be about Richard the Lion-Hearted. Then wondered why it wasn't in History ..........

That King Richard was definitely sexist, but don't tell the alarmists, they'll think you're an SJW for sure!