Feminist Upset That an Action Movie Contains Violence Against Women

Back in February, when a feminist remarked on the fact that most speaking roles in films are men, I posted that it was because most of the bad guys are men. I also noted that if filmmakers increased the number of female characters by making female bad guys (bad girls?) for the heroes to kill, feminists would complain about "violence against women."

Over at Feministing, Chloe reviewed Killers and fulfilled my prediction:

Perhaps one of the most upsetting things about this movie is the rather graphic violence against women. It's nice to see women get in on the action, literally: The majority of the assassins who come after Spencer and Jen are women. But it's not nice to note that the assassins who are most brutally killed are women. When the women are killed - impaled on chandeliers made of antlers or shot point-blank - we see it in gory detail, and we see close-ups of their bleeding bodies. When the men are killed, there's no such attention to detail.

I haven't seen Killers so I can't remark on whether or not there really was more gore when women died than men, or if it was just Chloe's perception. Even if it was the case, does it really matter? There are hundreds of films (or more) out there where dozens of men die messily and no women do, so is one film that subverts this trope really that bad? "Graphic violence against men" occurs in virtually every action film. The only difference between this film and the others is that is that the people dying graphically have tits.

It is impossible to please feminists. If what Chloe wrote about a majority of the assassins being women is true (and there is no reason to think that it isn't), then Killers is probably the first action movie in which most of the bad guys are really bad girls. Instead of praising the film for this new step in the full inclusion and portrayal of women in film, she attacks it.

After fifty years of feminism, it should be clear that feminists do not want equality and this is just another example. When hundreds of movies show countless men dying graphically, no one (including feminists) bats an eye, but when one movie shows female antagonists dying graphically, feminists whine about its depiction of "violence against women."

Grrrl Power in Disney's Prince of Persia

Later this month, Disney is releasing the film Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, based on the similarly named adventure video game series. When I saw the trailer, I noticed that it looks as if the main female character, Princess Tamina, has been turned into an action girl. She can be seen wielding a sword and fighting with it. It's interesting to contrast her role with those of women in the Prince of Persia video games.

In the game in which the movie appears to have been based, the eponymous Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, there was a female protagonist (Farah) who followed the Prince, but she was an archer. Also, in the 2008 reboot, simply titled Prince of Persia, there was a woman (Elika) who accompanied the Prince, but she was a magic-user, not a warrior. Both of them essentially ended up as damsels in distress, though not in the traditional manner.

Evidentally, Disney decided that female archers and mages don't have enough "grrrl power" so they turned her into a warrior. I'm not really surprised, since Disney has made a habit out of making anachronistic "empowered woman" characters, such as in Pirates of the Carribean and Alice and Wonderland. And in modern film and TV, writers are not creative enough to demonstrate a woman's empowerment besides having them kill one or more men in physical combat.

Also, in the video game and its sequels, there were female villains and generic enemies - corrupted harem concubines and sorceresses, among others. Somehow, I doubt that there will be any female enemies in the film. Female enemies are ubiquitous in video games, but are nonexistent in action and adventure movies.

Remember, according to Hollywood, even though female-on-male violence is "empowering" and "kick-ass," male-on-female violence is "abusive" and "misgynistic." And in Hollywood, if one woman dies it's a tragedy (unless an Action Girl kills her), but if a dozen men die it's entertainment. Disney in particular has been promoting both of those (look at Pirates of the Carribean for plenty of examples).

On the good side, it looks as if Disney is depicting the Persians as white, unlike in other films such as Alexander where the Iranian wife of Alexander the Great was played by a mulatto and in 300 where they were a motley assortment of dark-skinned peoples.