http://www.autostraddle.com/look-al l-of-the-women-in-ghostb

>>6632157
Is autostraddle to lesbians as Susan's is to transgirls? What is it?

>>6632157

I wouldn't be surprised. How many hetero women really hold blue collar jobs? In fact, it works better this way. They're just being true-to-life instead of SJW.

It's compelling enough a concept. I think from the tone of the writing, and knowing Autostraddle, it's a bit of forcing headcannon, but that's their thing.

I would be more critical of something like this if there weren't countless 'Fried Green Tomatoes's where characters can be all but fucking and straight people will be offended and flip out like 'WELL, WHERE'S YOUR PROOF? HUH? HUH? THEY'RE JUST FRIENDS!'

>>6632183
College professor, even at a shitty school like the fat one's teaching that, is far from a blue collar job.
McKinnon is more an amateur scientist than she is a mechanic, I don't know if she technically works at the school as well, or is just there to hang out.

The one actual 'blue collar job' would be Patty with her subway job.

>>6632157
Who cares, lesbians get pandered to as is.

They don't suffer from any of the stigma gay or trans do. The authors would never have written gay leads when they think that's icky and the average guy on the street responds with violence.

And it's a sub par film anyhow

>>6632157
Right. And I guess next we'll discover they're really transgender. And after that we'll discover they're genderqueer. And after that we'll discover they're really Muslim. And after that...

>>6632228
>Who cares, lesbians get pandered to as is.
Queer-bating =/= pandering
Might get some subtext, might even get some out and out lady loving, but you can bet that they'll either end up dead or with a man at some point, and honestly, I don't know which is worse.

Great example is that MTV show Faking It. Could have been a great show for 12 year olds, and yet how quick were they to hook Amy up with a man?

>They don't suffer from any of the stigma gay or trans do. The authors would never have written gay leads when they think that's icky and the average guy on the street responds with violence.
Listen, I do not want to imply that violence is something to be shrugged off, but the one thing gay men do have is the benefit of the world taking them seriously. No one doubts that a gay dude wants to fuck other dudes. Lesbians are constantly being questioned in their identity, and far too many men out there believe that every lesbian relationship is a potential threesome for them, or that lesbians would be straight if they got the right dicking, or were 'more attractive'.
That takes a mental toll.

>>6632228
>And it's a sub par film anyhow
MISOGYNIST!!

>>6632266
>Listen, I do not want to imply that violence is something to be shrugged off,
It's gendered tactics of silence, mostly. Gay men and trans women face massive danger of being assaulted and beaten and possibly killed (trans women die the most out of the entire LGBT) because they are seen as weak and feminine men.

Whereas lesbians and trans men tend to be silenced by other means - socially by ignoring them but most commonly by "corrective" rape. However since rape is many many times less common than random violence overall it's still million times safer to be a dyke or unpassing trans guy than gay looking/acting guy or unpassing trans woman.

>>6632329
Yeah, because little dicked men feel threatened or something and that's how they respond to shit.
I've had a woman give me verbal shit for being in the womens' room (I'm cis, but she didn't agree so), but women just don't generally get violent like that.

>>6632157
Doesn't Kristin Wiig spend most of the movie awkwardly flirting with Chris Hemsworth?

>>6632383
Yeah. Did you read the article, though?
Makes a decent enough argument for her having been previously with McCarthy in some way.

File: heard you talkin' shit like I wouldn't find out.jpg (48KB, 564x846px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 564x846px

>>6632157

I think the real question is, who cares? The movie flopped and was even worse than I was expecting it to be (though the idiots blowing up prematurely about it being "feminist propaganda" were idiots, it was a terrible movie for reasons completely unrelated to politics).

>>6632426
I mean, I do. Shitty as it was, I really haven't seen too many movies with a cast of women like this, and I watch everything.
Glad Kate McKinnon has a big role, having been on TV for like ten years now or more.
And, as stupid as it might sound to you, I like seeing more queer characters on screen. Wish they could be more confirmed then they are, I mean, no reason Holtzmann can't be a cannon-dyke, but it's nice.

I really take issue with the 'Ugh, pop culture doesn't MATTER' camp. We're human, it does, unfortunately.

>>6632446

Maybe I can't bring myself to care because I'd rather get excited over queer characters in a movie that's actually GOOD, rather than putting a bad movie on a pedestal for queer representation (and even then, it's the "wink wink nudge nudge" kind, not the open kind that I would find preferable and actually worth giving more attention to).

>>6632460
>Maybe I can't bring myself to care because I'd rather get excited over queer characters in a movie that's actually GOOD
Like I said, the movie was only alright. I really enjoyed it, though.

>rather than putting a bad movie on a pedestal for queer representation (and even then, it's the "wink wink nudge nudge" kind, not the open kind that I would find preferable and actually worth giving more attention to).
Here's where I'm conflicted. On the one hand, yes, something could be so much better, however, I understand that movies are a business, and that Hollywood is only going to be as 'progressive' as the almighty dollar allows them to be. Any step in the right direction is a step in the right direction, and it's at least worthy of a minute about of praise.

>>6632497
On the other hand, attitude like yours only enables the entertainment industry to treat us like useful tools to defend themselves with from criticism and shower themselves in "progressive" praise by "nodding" to us.

Stop being so sentimental about it. It's a shit movie with really on the nose progressive agenda that flopped. If it was actually good no one would have cared if it had progressive or conservative agenda. Like how, for example, the new Star Wars movie is obviously the progressive version of SW since the two main characters are a black guy and a woman in a franchise with traditionally white male heroes but nobody really cares since the new SW film is actually good.

>>6632460
Yeah, I kinda feel this. A lot of iconic queer films or characters in the past were only heavily implied. The thread mentioned Fried Green Tomatoes - the film reduces the explicitly mention lesbian relationship to subtext, but it was 1991 so it's forgivable. Given the shift in gay representation over the last quarter of a century, I don't think having vague allusions to lesbianism really is sufficient for a film to gain praise for being queer.
This article basically goes "this is a film about a bunch of queer women, because I can vaguely align my fanfiction theories with a couple of scenes". No. This Hollywood blockbuster doesn't get the merit badge for being a film about a bunch of queer people, because even the gayest one in the film is never explicitly mentioned or shown to be gay.
Perhaps instead of skipping around going ~the ghostbusters is gay~ the author should focus on the bit she glossed over, "oh Jillian was totally meant to be gay but Hollywood nixed it, but anyway yeah she's so gay and cool". Why is Hollywood still excising LGBT people from scripts? Instead of celebrating subtext, she should be focusing on the fact that what could have been an action movie with explicitly gay characters has been reduced to a movie with subtext.

>>6632519

I honestly feel like the courting of controversy was intentional because they didn't want the new Ghostbusters to just be forgotten like every other shitty reboot of a classic that just uses the original title in the hopes of banking on name recognition (most recently Total Recall / Robocop). And it might have worked out for them, if they didn't have horrible trailers and then double down on everyone who thought they were terrible by calling them misogynists. In the end, they reaped what they sewed.

>>6632519
>On the other hand, attitude like yours only enables the entertainment industry to treat us like useful tools to defend themselves with from criticism and shower themselves in "progressive" praise by "nodding" to us.
Yeah, but I gotta be realistic about it. I can get mad all I want, but no major movie studio is going to do something because they think it's 'right'. It will literally never ever happen.

>Stop being so sentimental about it. It's a shit movie with really on the nose progressive agenda that flopped.
I really enjoyed it. Never said it was cinema master piece.

>If it was actually good no one would have cared if it had progressive or conservative agenda.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
I know Sony stirred the pot on the one from the start, but holy fuck, are you naive if you're about to tell me that a movie with women leads, with an IP so creamed over as Ghostbusters, with queer material thrown in wouldn't have caused a shit storm on its own. My buddy's roommate was pissed from the time it was announced because, in his words, 'females can't be friends like that'.


>Like how, for example, the new Star Wars movie is obviously the progressive version of SW since the two main characters are a black guy and a woman in a franchise with traditionally white male heroes but nobody really cares since the new SW film is actually good.
/tv/ still hasn't recovered, are you sure?

>>6632545

Who the flying fuck cares what /tv/ thinks? They're inconsequential.

>>6632529
In their defense, there's a separate article about just that on Autostraddle as well.
It's a really shit site, too casual for me. I'll let it go for like a week and scroll through when I'm bored.

>>6632558
Because they're indicative of some people's opinion?
I know shit gets over-blown on 4chan and some of it IS a joke, but when I read and hear watered down versions of the redpilled hissyfit on 'normie' sites and in person, I have to wonder.

>>6632545
>/tv/ still hasn't recovered, are you sure?
Meh the 4chan was never going to like the progressive version of anything. It's the normies that matter.

>>6632562
Ech. I feel at this point we need to stop rewarding Hollywood for stuff like this. We need to stop scrounging for crumbs of gayness as there's no reason they can't include explicitly gay characters.
Well, ok, the actual reason is that Hollywood is increasingly courting the Chinese market
http://www.icrosschina.com/profile/2014/0728/1942.shtml
and the Chinese market wouldn't accept it, which means while Hollywood operates in a relatively progressive country it's beholden to the moral standards of a conservative country. But I guess that's globalisation for you!

File: 97680ffdcab5fadb31ae07bc98bfcd3d.jpg (51KB, 736x460px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 736x460px

>>6632266
>queer baiting is not pandering
>here is one example

Stop. Do you know how many more lesbians/bi-girls are seen in modern television then gay men? And bi men are nearly nonexistent, there is also way more "queer" baiting homoeroticism in media as well, it sucks that you apparently think bi/ and curious women are horrible and that non straight women should be immune to anything bad happening to them

>>6632699
>Stop. Do you know how many more lesbians/bi-girls are seen in modern television then gay men?
1) Are we having an oppression fight?
I did not say that gay men have oodles of television representation. I just said that their identities are not questioned. (It's overly set in stone, you could say, as too many see 'bisexual' men as just gay.) If lesbians have their identities in question in day to day life, it doesn't not help when pop culture undermines that idenities with 'confused' or 'suddendly bisexual' women.
2) Bi women are not lesbians, they're bi women


>And bi men are nearly nonexistent
We should have more, then.

>there is also way more "queer" baiting homoeroticism in media as well, it sucks that you apparently think bi/ and curious women are horrible
Hardly, see above. It's not that I want less bisexual women. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing more self-proclaimed bisexual women. What I don't want is to finally get a lesbian on, and then have them end up with a dude.
It's having your cake and eating it to, for one. Just gay enough to get the gays, but don't worry guys, she'll save a space in her heart for you dick, don't worry, you're special. As well as reinforcing the notion that lesbians aren't really a 'permanent' thing.

>and that non straight women should be immune to anything bad happening to them
Problem is that none of this happens in a vacuum. If we could flip a switch and go 'Oh, we're all equal now', yes. Have lesbians fall for dudes. Have lesbians killed. Have lesbians have miserable endings to their stories. Logically, I don't mind this.
Problem is when it's overwhelmingly what happens to them, and has pretty much been happening to them since the time of the Hays Code, where you could have 'unmentionable' women, so long as they got what was coming to them at the end.
It all adds up and it all has an impact.

There's some 'making up' to be done here. We're in a transition period.
We'll get there, I think.

>>6632446
Bridesmaids and Trainwreck are basically the same genre of movie.
Ghostbusters tried to turn an R-rated raunchy female-targeted film to a PG-13 kids film, and it's a reboot at that. This same kind of thing happens in tons of other films and fails like 90% of the time.

>>6632791
Ok? Like I said, *I* liked it. I didn't say it was a good movie.

I'm really caught between two camps here. Problem is, you can have a male dominated movie and it's never going to be considered a 'guy movie'. (Talked about this on /tv/, there are 'bro' movie lists I see online, but they generally include critically acclaimed movies like Fight Club, so it's not a disparaging term.) And even if someone says it's stupid or low comedy, you can have 'male specific' jokes and no one is made truly uncomfortable and I don't hear any vocal complaining.
Try it with women and all autism breaks loose. 'Ugh, I can't relate!' on the good end of the spectrum, all the way down to crying about SJW's ruining the planet by acknowledging the fact that vaginas exist.

There a part in this film where they trick Wig's character into listen to a fart, asking her to listen to an EVP. It's a stupid joke for men, it's a stupid joke for women, that's fine. But then McKinnon's character asks something to the effect of 'would you feel different knowing it came out the front' to Wig. It's more about making Wig's character uncomfortable, it's basically the first 'flirt' from McKinnon, but I heard audible groans in the threatre at it. Stupid as the fart joke was, that was fine, but mention a queer, and good lord, roll them eyes, boys.

>>6632329

>However since rape is many many times less common than random violence overall it's still million times safer to be a dyke or unpassing trans guy than gay looking/acting guy or unpassing trans woman.

Sexual assault is significantly more common than random violence.

File: 1462416770549.gif (998KB, 252x190px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 252x190px

>>6632753
>bi women are not lesbians
>but I don't hate bi women
>lesbians discovering parts of their sexuality don't fit the label assigned to them and that sexuality is indeed fluid reinforces negative lesbian stereotypes
>still trying yo come off as reasonable and morally ethical


Fuck off with your biphobic bullshit, god forbid a tv show portray a character as curious or discovering thier sexuality because it's so harmful to the poor lesbeans

File: 1462612597878.gif (2MB, 317x229px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 317x229px

>>6632901
Sorces bud?

>>6632901
>Sexual assault is significantly more common than random violence.
Maybe sexual assault as defined "he touched me on the hand therefore he raped me" is but real rape is nowhere nowhere near as common as physical assault among guys especially physical assault on feminine guys by other guys.

>>6632908
But this is where that 'nothing happens in a vacuum' thing comes in.
Lets go back like twenty or thirty years, where an even bigger majority of queer characters either ended up dead, were shown to be fucking crazy, or used as villains.
Are there bad queer people? Yes. Are there queer villains? Yes. Are there miserable queers? Yes.
However, when you only show them as villains, 'Ugh, so what, gay people can't be bad now?' isn't a good defense.

There are bisexuals out there, I know. There are lesbians out there that come to find out they like dudes sometimes, that's cool too.
But if that's what's being shown near exclusively, yes, it's problem. Especially when you get out from media that's obviously about gay context, something like the L Word, where you really could skip it if you had something against gay content, when you get into 'normal' shows that happen to have a lesbian character and they overwhelming end up dead or with men, then yes, it's a problem.

You have to ask yourself what is so preferable about showing a lesbian ending up with a man. It's because it's the safest choice, see:>>6632753
>Just gay enough to get the gays, but don't worry guys, she'll save a space in her heart for you dick, don't worry, you're special.
There's something wrong with that.