Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to not want my DS to be confronted with this large poster when we go to cinema?

417 replies

HubbaBubbaMum · 08/01/2016 10:25

Went to cinema this week with DH, planning to take DS and his brother tomorrow for birthday treat. I can't believe that in 2016 we will be forced to walk past this poster and that they have even called the film Dirty Granpa!
www.movieinsider.com/posters/277857/

Really??? Letching older man perving young woman's suggestively raised arse whilst other man holds 'petrol nozzle' pointing at her?? I don't want my sons seeing this sexist shit.
(only one cinema in our town btw)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
BertrandRussell · 09/01/2016 12:10

Feel free. Hmm

horseygeorgie · 09/01/2016 12:12

It was a light hearted comment. Forgetting this is Mumsnet, I should really have put a disclaimer next to it. Didn't think I would really have to! I'm hiding this tread.

BertrandRussell · 09/01/2016 12:15

So you'll hide the thread rather than have a discussion, on a discussion board? A discussion, furthermore, where you hold the majority view? Why, on earth?

laurierf · 09/01/2016 12:20

Hmmm… interesting review of Magic Mike… anyone else seen it to agree or disagree?

Aside from the questionably empowering viewer interaction with the film, the content of Magic Mike is old-school sexism wrapped in a new package. It reinforces prevailing notions of masculinity where white men are in control, both economically and sexually, and women are secondary characters to be exploited for money and passed around for male sexual pleasure.

Most of the women in the film are audience members portrayed as easily manipulated cash cows to be exploited for money. In one scene, the club boss, Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) gets his dancers pumped up before a show by asking them, “Who’s got the cock? You do. They don’t.” Dallas has a running commentary that forcefully rejects the idea that female audience members are sexual subjects in the exchange.

Beyond the foundational theme of male control, many (but not all) of the simulated sex acts the dancers perform in their interactions with female audience members service the male stripper’s pleasure, not hers. Dancers shove women’s faces into their crotch to simulate fellatio, hump women’s faces, perform faux sex from behind without a nod to clitoral stimulation, etc. As a culture, we have deprioritized female sexual pleasure to such a great extent that these acts seem normal in a setting where they don’t make sense.

While the men in Magic Mike strut their sexual stuff with a plot line that constantly reaffirms their sexual subjectivity, the few supporting female roles show women in surprisingly pornified, objectifying ways. Magic Mike is pretty tame when it comes to male bodies. Lots of floor and face humping and naked asses, but no penis or even close-up penis tease shots through banana hammocks. In fact, viewers aren’t exposed to any male body part that they wouldn’t see at Venice Beach. The same cannot be said for women.

The movie features gratuitous breast scenes galore (yes, the breasts are the scene) and full body (side and back) female nudity. One of the male stripper’s wives is reduced to a pair of breasts that are passed around when her husband encourages another male stripper to fondle them because “she loves it.” The few recurring female roles in the cast are flat with no character development, including the romantic interest, while the white men in the film enjoy extensive character development.

Other disturbing moments are peppered throughout the movie. Magic Mike (Channing Tatum) makes a thinly veiled rape innuendo when he’s “teaching” a younger guy how to approach a woman at a club: “Look what she’s wearing. She’s asking to be bothered.”

Theydontknowweknowtheyknow · 09/01/2016 12:34

"Theydont That's okay then - all the men who have been treated shabbily should just be grateful because it's far worse for women."

yes that's exactly what I saidBiscuit

Andrewofgg · 09/01/2016 12:38

laurierf Thanks for that. I had not heard of this film and now I know I have no interest in seeing it. It sounds vile.

LiviaDrusillaAugusta · 09/01/2016 13:33

I can't imagine why we don't want to justify our opinions to you - perhaps it's because we don't want to be ripped apart over something so trivial.

Yabbadabbo2 · 09/01/2016 13:35

Yabu an over reaction to a movie poster both men and women are objectified in the 21st century and many women take offence but majority of men are not bothered by it and just get on with life. There are far worse acts in this world to be concerned with than a movie poster but don't let them get in your way.

laurierf · 09/01/2016 13:49

There are far worse acts in this world to be concerned with than a movie poster but don't let them get in your way

The OP seems pretty bright to me - I'm sure she can have concerns about all sorts of things and it took her a matter of minutes to register her objection with the ASA.

If we followed your logic "there are far worse acts in the world" what actually would any of us be justifiably concerned about? There will always be worse happening somewhere else in the world. I assume you apply this rule to yourself and never complain about any aspect of the society you live in...

BertrandRussell · 09/01/2016 14:14

"I can't imagine why we don't want to justify our opinions to you - perhaps it's because we don't want to be ripped apart over something so trivial."

It's interesting to me that if anyone has been "ripped apart" on this thread, it's the tiny minority who are bothered by the poster!

And yet the perception is that it's the other way round. I wonder why that is?

goodnightdarthvader1 · 09/01/2016 15:04

So many MRA-type arguments and deflections used on this thread. Very disheartening. Do people even know they're doing it?

And 99% of these points I've answered already, so won't bother to repeat myself.

Yabbadabbo2 · 09/01/2016 15:09

I rarely do I'm a glass half full person I don't walk around looking for trivial matters to fire up my moral outrage.

LiviaDrusillaAugusta · 09/01/2016 15:12

Do people even know they're doing it? Patronising, much?

I imagine the replies would have been different if the OP had been posted on the FWR board.

I don't know if my comments are 'MRA style' but am flattered happy to be told they are.

BertrandRussell · 09/01/2016 15:13

"I rarely do I'm a glass half full person I don't walk around looking for trivial matters to fire up my moral outrage."

Just checking- did you mean to be incredibly dismissive and rude? Fine if you did- I would hate you to have done it by accident!

laurierf · 09/01/2016 15:15

Yabba - rarely but not never. This seems trivial to you, it doesn't to the OP and others. Surprised you found the time to post twice on such a trivial subject though Hmm

LiviaDrusillaAugusta · 09/01/2016 15:16

And fwiw I don't have an issue with anyone disagreeing with me as I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion, I have just been stung on previous threads (under a different name) by some of the posters here and cba to argue.

BertrandRussell · 09/01/2016 15:21

I am just baffled that anyone who didn't want to join in the discussion would keep coming back to express their view and keep refusing to explain why they think what they think. What's the point of that?

laurierf · 09/01/2016 15:30

I don't get people repeatedly posting on a thread about something they view as so "trivial" - not least when they say they don't actively look to get riled by trivial things.

I also don't think feel free to write to the cinema, or better yet go in and complain - it will give a good laugh to a few people doing a low paid job was a particularly polite way to start a conversation… patronising, much?

SurferJet · 09/01/2016 15:31

Op: yanbu.

Sexist shit. & Robert De Niro must really need the money.

goodnightdarthvader1 · 09/01/2016 15:57

I am just baffled that anyone who didn't want to join in the discussion would keep coming back to express their view and keep refusing to explain why they think what they think. What's the point of that?

Indeed. It's "You're wrong, just letting you know that you're wrong, but I won't explain why because I've got more important things to worry about (ie. my reasons don't really make sense / I can't be bothered to come up with a reason but I just feel in my gut that I disagree with you)."

I've been on several threads where people have done that. I just dismiss those people as they clearly haven't given much thought to their opinions, or bothered to informed themselves on the issues under discussion.

BertrandRussell · 09/01/2016 16:34

I find the "I don't want to explain because I'll be ripped to shreds" line a bit odd too, on a thread like this when the vast majority of contributors think the poster is absolutely fine, and many have said so in distinctly robust language!

Theydontknowweknowtheyknow · 09/01/2016 19:42

It's because they don't think. I think we've established in the last week that the worldwide sexualisation of woman not only has real consequences but that it is minimalised to an extraordinary degree.

Italiangreyhound · 09/01/2016 20:49

I am sure some men (and probably to the point more boys) are objectified in some situations in our modern age. But no where near as much or as often as women, IMHO, nor with such devastating affects to females.

Can I ask if anyone can point to areas where they feel men and boys are objectified?

laurierf thanks for saying more about the film, now I know I do not want to see it at all!

Italiangreyhound · 09/01/2016 20:49

correction ... affects as to females.

Italiangreyhound · 09/01/2016 20:54

SATC is not males being objectified. There are men having sex, often relationship-less sex, but the women are too, the women are empowered, that doesn't mean the men are not at all in control of their choices. The men are not often (if at all) shown as headless, person's less sex objects, or private parts.