Ice Age: setting female characters back a few millennia…
Ice Age is one of the worst children’s films I’ve ever seen in terms of gender portrayal.
In a nutshell, Ice Age is a classic all-male buddy adventure in which a motley group of guys of different prehistoric species bring a (male) baby back to his human clan. The human clan is weirdly also all male except for the baby’s mom, who sacrifices her life in the beginning of the movie in order to set up their great adventure. The lack of female main characters is pretty standard fare, so it’s the “mom’s sacrifice” scene that truly places this film in a class of its own.
In order to save her baby from a saber-tooth tiger, the mother clutches him to her and throws herself over a high waterfall. When she reaches the river below, she’s in good enough shape to grab onto a tree trunk extending from the riverbank and pull herself to the edge of the water. As she pulls herself along, she’s walking on the floor of the river, thus she’s not paralyzed or otherwise mortally wounded. She has the strength to push her baby up onto a rock and look sadly into the eyes of the mammoth, imploring him to steady her baby with his trunk so he won’t slide back into the river. Once she sees that her baby is safely in the mammoth’s care, she lets go of the rock and swirls away down the river, and the only reaction to her death was the sloth sadly saying “she’s gone.”
Even if I suspend my disbelief enough to buy that she has the strength to get just that far but can’t pull herself out of the river, this scene screams the following question: Why didn’t the mammoth put his trunk around both of them and save them both?
Answer: Because the only purpose of her life was to set up their buddy adventure, and that would have messed it up.
This was worse than the mom’s sacrifice setting up the adventure in Finding Nemo because in that case at least it was clear the mom couldn’t have been saved. The scene in Ice Age demonstrates that the writers didn’t give a second thought to the mom as a person: they saw her as a disposable character and wanted to milk her for one last emotional parting shot before throwing her away.
Aside from that, a few nameless females make brief appearances in their usual roles (moms, girls being hit on). Even the pride of saber-tooth tigers out to get the heroes is all male for some unknown reason. Actually, I know the reason: the film is pure formula from start to finish — including the jokes — and that’s the only thing their script-generating program knows how to spit out.
Ice Age II is an improvement over Ice Age since — in addition to adding several wacky new male characters to the cast — they added one wacky new female character. She is, of course, the love interest who provides romantic comedy as the male mammoth character woos her.
In a memory sequence in the first movie the mammoth was shown to be sad and lonely because his mate died — coincidentally enough — protecting their baby. In that case, though, the baby died too, so he was even more sad than the human dad who was okay with losing his wife when at least he got his son back. Thus the mammoth needed a new mate to make him happy again.
How many (theoretical) female characters have to give their lives to set up some back-story for male protagonists? I hate to even touch the question…
Posted in *Kids' Shows Tags: Ice Age
Subscribe to RSS feed
Submit Article: Stumble it! | Del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Digg
133 comments
Now, here’s where you’re overthinking it. I’ve watched the movie, and although there aren’t any lead female characters, I really don’t think that this was done through any purposeful action. If you judged every film like that, quite a few, including some of the really exceptional films, would be reduced to misogynistic slag. The movie was a buddy comedy, something that I’m typically not a fan of. However, in this case the movie was actually alright to watch, despite being overly sappy from the whole “character having an epiphany” feature, by the characters themselves and their interactions actually being funny. This film is not meant to be taken seriously, just as a quick laugh with a pleasant afterfeel. The entire point of the characters is that their gender is moot, an irrelevant point- female characters could have been added without any major detriment, but would have acted towards each other in the same manner as the initial trio, gender not mattering, only the personalities. The sequel, by destroying this “group of friends” format, adding a character ~who acts as an interrupting influence for the group chemistry~, is worse, as it doesn’t even have the original’s congenial humor, just annoying romance jokes. If you’re looking for a film that’s liberating to the sexes, find something that takes itself seriously- this is just an innocent piece of humor without any real intention either way.
Sorry I’ve gone on so long about such a triviality, I just like criticism for the right reasons.
That’s exactly the problem though. This kind of thing is so common in all kinds of films that film makers do it without thinking. That it isn’t done on purpose in some ways only makes it worse.
A lot of good films have unintentional sexism, or simple exclusion of female characters, and I would like the cinema in general a lot better if this were not the case.
How condescending. Get your own site where you tell people what they’re allowed to care about and what they must shrug off and ignore because you know best for everyone. Don’t waste my bandwidth with your facile opinions.
As we often discuss, there are right ways to make shows/movies about male buddies.
This movie missed the mark. The fact that the mother threw her life away totally unnecessarily suggests very clearly that she accepts she has no value and might as well just go die. You can’t even argue it was just staged poorly; it’s freakin’ animation. They could easily have made it clear the mother’s death was unavoidable; they chose not to.
If you don’t get why anyone would complain about that, perhaps you would benefit from reading Feminism 101.
It’s amazing how the human brain will fill in gaps in missing information. When I saw Ice Age, I just assumed that the mother had been impaled through the stomach with a rock, or suffered some other fatal wound, and because it was a children’s movie the gore just wasn’t being shown. Like, the mammoth could see her guts leaking out into the river, but the camera angle obscured that from the viewers. My brain made that assumption for me, because the alternative - that there was no reason for her to die, or for the mammoth not to save her - made no sense whatsoever.
As far as what Green’s saying goes - I’ve seen a lot of really good films that nontheless left with me with nagging criticisms because they got everything SO RIGHT and then screwed up on a female role. The Departed, which is a fabulous look at corruption and identity, won this year’s Oscar for best pic, nonetheless moved me to write about it because of the way the woman’s role was done.
A large amount of the reviews on this site are for such reasons - otherwise good movies and TV shows which slip on on the women’s role because writers who can otherwise do brilliant work see women as nonentities. Just because ‘it’s such a small aside’ doesn’t make the fact there’s a collective view of women as nonentities any less offensive.
This is not a question of my “overthinking” or overanalyzing my critique. The very first time I saw this scene, I was viscerally horrified by it.
The problem is exactly what Djiril said: “This kind of thing is so common in all kinds of films that film makers do it without thinking. That it isn’t done on purpose in some ways only makes it worse.”
This thing is that the mom sacrificing herself to save her child is such a stock device for setting up an adventure that the writers can practically sleep-write it, and consequently end up taking it to this grotesque extreme.
Logically, going over that waterfall, the mom probably would have broken her back or head on rocks and died immediately. If it were just a question of avoiding the gore for the kids’ sake, they could easily have gone with the same “just find the baby alone in the wreckage” approach like Jungle Book or Finding Nemo by having him get caught on a branch or something. But they actually show her pulling herself on a tree and walking along all the way to the edge of the water. It’s jarringly weird that she doesn’t even try to continue pulling herself around the rock she’s clinging to (see the screenshot) and try to climb up out of the river.
The only reason this doesn’t jump out at the audience is that you know she has to die — it’s a standard formula that you’ve seen a million times — so the brain dismisses other possibilities that would be obvious if a similar scene had been placed somewhere else in the narrative. For example, if this scene had come at the end of the movie (and we’d been following her as a protagonist the whole time), she would have been saved.
p.s.: I was watching this film again with my kids, and as I paused it to take that screenshot, my six-year-old son asked me “Why does the mommy give the baby to Manfred? Doesn’t she want him anymore?”
Shit, that just really says it all right there.
One more thing regarding Green’s comment:
It is one thing to disagree with a poster. It’s quite another to tell the poster it’s not that she’s wrong, it’s that it doesn’t matter.
It’s one thing to tell a poster you feel she’s overthinking, and quite another to state as fact that she is overthinking.
In both cases, the latter smacks of so much privilege, so much entitlement to march into a “minority space” and put those confused people in their place, that I almost regret that we took up thread space explaining why the points in the post do matter… especially since the points were clear in the post to begin with!
I almost deleted Green’s comment from the start, but since it was fairly obvious Green didn’t realize he, she or it was trolling, I thought I’d leave it in and address it publicly as an object lesson for other people who feel it’s their duty to put us poor silly gals straight on these issues we shouldn’t be worrying our pretty little heads about.
Some additional context:
The mammoth had just gotten done battling two charging rhinos to save the life of a sloth he’d just met. A few scenes later, he risks his life to extend a helping trunk to save an untrustworthy tiger from falling into a pit of (what else?) hot, boiling lava.
Yet he can’t extend a helping trunk to this mom as he’s standing there watching her struggle? She doesn’t reach for it? Even if he thinks she’s probably mortally wounded, he can’t spare the two seconds it would take to pull her out of the water and see if she can be saved? Even if it were just a question of being more concerned about the safety of the baby, it’s obvious that the baby would have a far better chance of survival with his mom alive.
But really it’s a question of priorities. What really matters here is their wonderful buddy adventure.
Sorry, my initial wording does seem a little sneering on second look- I had meant that it was my opinion on the overthinking, nothing more. Thanks for the feedback though, first time posting and all that so I need all the input I can get.
I didn’t think Ice Age 2 was much of an improvement. Sure, there is a female, but she is the classic ditzy blonde. She grew up with two possum brothers, so she thinks she is also a possum, despite the fact that she’s at least twenty times their size. And it’s pretty clear that the purpose for her existence is to provide a mate for Manny.
It still amazes me how few female characters there are in kids’ movies. There are moms and girlfriends and potential girlfriends, and that’s about it. If I knew nothing about humans aside from what I saw in the movies, I could easily assume that the human race was 75% male.
green — it’s okay, you’ve provided good discussion fodder, and it’s nice that you’re willing to consider an alternate viewpoint…
kristi — I think Ice Age II is pretty sexist as well. The only reason it’s an improvement ove Ice Age is that it merely has the (unfortunately) typical level of movie sexism rather than being a serious contender for worst ever.
Green: what C.L. said.
Re: the lack of females in kids’ movies that Kristi observes. I believe this sets kids up to understand that “male is default”. I don’t think it’s done intentionally, because early on it was done so convincingly in the form of Genesis, where Adam comes first and Eve is an afterthought created for his entertainment and you’re not allowed to question this because men didn’t make up the story, God dictated it to them, and we have the word of the men on that, oh, yeah, that now it’s just a value people default to.
I think the fact that women aren’t included unless they are in roles that provide a specific relationship to the male characters is important. It shows a how dominant this male-centric view of the world is that half the population can routinely be significantly under-represented without people noticing. (How many female Muppets can you name?) It doesn’t mean that it’s malicious but that it indicates a problem in which women aren’t thought of as personalities but just relationships relative to men. It diminishes our humanity.
I also noticed that the mother character was attractive even though she was a “cave man” while the male members of the tribe were more rough looking. This is another common theme — women always have to be good looking.
Wow. I just had to delete two troll comments essentially telling us “get over it; it’s just a cartoon”. Except with ruder language, of course, and the usual comments about us not having lives.
I think some people are very worried we’re going to dismantle their cozy little world. Don’t worry, little trolls: once we destroy TV, movies and video games as you know them, we’ll just lock you into virtual reality pods where you can enjoy your last days in a world where entertainment is still mentally deficient.
We don’t want to “get over it,” we want to see better cartoons, and that won’t happen if no one says anything about the flaws of the current crop.
And you know, if you think this blog is a waste of time, no one is forcing you to read it!
Be ready for more trolls… your blog was posted to fark.com. They’re… an opinionated bunch over there.
I do agree to a certain degree… it *is* a cartoon, etc etc. But I have that said to me all the time, being a grad student with a bunch of friends who aren’t
But my other points are:
1) I’ve never been convinced as to the gender of the baby. We can assume it is male… but it really is at that age where we cannot determine simply by looking. Now I may be missing something, as it’s been a few years since I’ve seen it (for all that it sits on my DVD shelf), but I don’t ever remember having a solid idea to the gender of the child.
2) What about Manny’s wife? She is never shown as a character, but is shown in a flashback on the cave wall. Remember that Manny has a lot of grief and guilt over the death of his wife and child. I have to wonder (and again, it has been a while since seeing said movie) if this situation was setup… a foreshadowing for that flashback to Manny’s character, to his helplessness and guilt.
3) I also took it as the mother had massive internal injuries or somesuch… or, as another poster had it, you can’t really show nasty massive injuries in a film rated G.
4) Timing on this post? Ice Age has been out for what, four years? Did this just hit everyone now?
(please note the last is more tongue-in-cheek and not meant as troll-bate)
5) Remember that the human group is heading to their winter quarters as it were… we don’t know who they are going to meet. They could easily be meeting up with the rest of their tribe/group… including more females. This could have been simply a hunting party, with the mother/child along because they were the partner/child of the head of the hunting group.
I will say I have a difficult time with feminist arguments… nothing is ever right. I was in a class where we were discussing Disney films, and the students presenting were discussing how terrible Disney has been with regard to Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. being very passive characters. I raised my hand and asked if we could have a discussion about the newer class of Disney females such as Belle, Nala, and Jasmine who took very active rolls in the storyline. I was then berated because Jasmine used her sexuality as a weapon, and also used Jafar’s sword, a male weapon.
It seems that there is no right answer in this argument. Women are wrong for using female weapons, and they are wrong for using male weapons. Where is the right answer? I really don’t think there is one.
My post got “farked”? Haha, I guess I should be flattered or something…
But seriously, to the commenters who say “all you feminists do is complain,” “it’s never good enough for you,” etc., I ask Why did you fark my one most critical post ever????!!
You want some more nuance, where I talk about movies that have positive as well as negative points, you are welcome to read my other posts!!!
I apologize for the fact that my comment was used by a very stupid person to support a very stupid point.
(*sigh*)
I hope I won’t be considered a troll (although I did get this link from Fark.com), but I haven’t heard it mentioned that the male characters are respectively portrayed as a hyperactive, speech impeded moron (sid), a grumpy heartless bastard who wants nothing to do with anyone (Manny), and a sadistic tiger who is out to eat a child (Diego).
Is it REALLY that out of the question to think that the creators of this movie were thinking about making a movie that would entertain children and make money, AND THATS IT? Can you honestly tell me they consciously made the decision to degrade women by not including any main female characters? That quite honestly strikes me as ridiculous and seems that people are searching for injustice where there is none to be found. True inequality and discrimination is a terrible thing, but I don’t think it’s healthy to pull an Al Sharpton and label people racist (or in this case sexist) when there is no tangible evidence whatsoever.
Denim, no one’s saying it’s a conscious decision. The fact that it’s so insidious they don’t even realize these very basic choices they make marginalize more than half the species is one of the bigger problems.
I’m trying not to delete anyone human coming from Fark, but most of the Farkers are making a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the blog with new, often obscene, comments every two seconds. If any legit comments are deleted, my apologies.
Can you honestly tell me they consciously made the decision to degrade women by not including any main female characters?
No. I do not think that is the case at all, as you can see from my previous post. You may also note that the author of the essay agreed with me.
Denim -
I’m not a mind reader, but I’m 100% sure that nobody that worked on Ice Age actually thought “I want to make a movie that denigrates women.” In fact, if you asked them, I’m sure that pretty much everybody who worked on Ice Age would insist that they’re not sexist.
But. They still made this sexist movie anyway.
Because that’s the way that sexism works. It’s subconcious, and usually unintended. Most people have good intentions. Most people don’t realize when they say or do something sexist, until someone points it out to them. That’s why feminists critique movies like Ice Age.
If you want to actually engage/argue against the reasons why this movie is sexist (explained quite well in the original post), then feel free. If you want to dismantle the invisible conspiracy theories that nobody is arguing for, then have fun bayonetting that strawman.
Kethryvis - An important thing to keep in mind when thinking about feminist analysis of anything, whether it be pop culture or something else:
Feminism isn’t the Borg - not all of us agree on any one thing. There are many feminisms, and different individuals approach analysis with their own angles. The thing we have in common as a group is the belief that women are disadvantaged in our culture, that’s wrong, and it can and should be changed. That’s about it. So some of us are gonna object to Jasmine’s flirtatious ways, and others will see her as an empowered and empowering character - there’s as much variety in feminist pop culture critics as in non-feminist critics.
Because “you’re being too nice” doesn’t attract trolls? Otherwise, I got nothing. (Although I’ve never used the phrase “you feminists”, so it’s possible that I just don’t have the background required to understand such a deductive leap.
)
Manny doesn’t want to save the baby in the first place. Only the mother’s pleading expression gets him to reach out and pull her infant to safety. But that IS the major conflict in Manny’s character. His mate & child were KILLED by humans! He doesn’t want to save the mother OR the child, but she appeals to his nature as a father to protect her son and then she dies. How she dies is not made graphically obvious because this is primarily, though not exclusively, a kid’s movie and showing a bloody gash from smashing her head on the rocks below would be too gruesome for children. I suppose that she could have succumbed to hypothermia from being in the freezing water, but that usually takes a few minutes.
You could complain that Manny wasn’t compassionate enough to save the mother, but Manny saved the baby despite losing his mate and child to humans. That shows that Manny IS compassionate, but not yet ready to trust an adult human not to kill him the way they killed his family.
I don’t see the mother’s death as merely a gratuitous play for sympathy or emotionalism. Formulaic, probably. Her dive over the falls with the baby was spectacular and heroic, but she posed a much bigger threat to Manny than the baby did and just as Manny would have been unlikely to rescue a predatory saber tooth like Diego at the start of the film, so too was Manny unwilling to save an adult human, which is also a dangerous predator. And, if the mother is saved, that removes the whole plot idea, which is, how do three clueless bachelor Pleistocene animals without parenting experience take care of a baby. Three Men and Baby with prehistoric mammals. Just my take on it.
Comments closed for now, for obvious reasons.
Comments re-opened. We’ll see how this goes.
Nope, sorry, comments closed again.
Opening comments again.
FYI, for those understandably wondering “WTF happened here?” we were getting dozens of comments ranging from “you’re a stupid @#%$%” to “get back in the kitchen, @#$%”.
I deleted them all because they’re nothing any of us hasn’t seen hundreds of times all over the web. I tried to let through any legitimate comments, but it’s entirely possible some got caught in the crossfire, and if so I apologize and invite you to comment again.
You will most likely find your comments getting held in moderation, so please be patient until I have time to read them and approve the appropriate ones.
I just remembered something about the first time I saw this movie. Right until the end, I was hoping the mother was still alive somehow and would pop up at some convenient moment as a deus ex machina. I still think that would have been a cool plot twist.
I don’t know if I understand the situation. From what I gather accidently (malicously? I don’t think anyone thinks so) leaving out a female lead character is an issue? I could see hundreds of movies or TV shows this year that would leave out black or hispanic characters, but it would be unlikely that anyone would notice or even care(mind I’m in Canada and our demographics are a little different).
I understand that more then P of our population, generally, is female, and that entertainment should reflect such. On that note, there are countless films where male characters are practically non existent, just as the same is true for films with female characters.
I seem to see this film as being one of the least sexist cartoon movies I’ve seen in a while. Sleeping beauty, Cinderella, hell even Toy Story (where the only female characters I can think of was a whorish sheppard, and the sister) Maybe we should look at this as an improvement, sure no positive representations, but no negative ones.
That last point is a little tongue and cheek, but I think you understand what I mean. Buddy movies follow a fixed story, that is always generally the same. No surprises, slap stick and a bobble-headed baby make audiences happy. Maybe if the same drivel didn’t sell, they would expand their horizons.
I imagine the next time I see the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants I will lament about a lack of male characters. Maybe criticism should be reserved for more pressing matters, god knows they’re out there. Perhaps I don’t understand, in which case please enlighten me.
To finish, as I’m going on longer then I had planned. I’ve quite enjoyed reading this, and I think I’ve enjoyed responding. I appologize if I ramble or if I’m difficult to follow, but I’m trying not to be coarse or rude. If I am please chalk it up to me just being clumsy.
The mom IS alive — watch for her in Ice Age 3: The Femisist’s Revenge!
Manny the Mammoth didn’t save her because he distrusted humans — they had killed his own wife (as we learn in a flashback sequence mid-way through the movie). He wasn’t even keen on remaining with the baby until he got to know him better.
Moco, it’s not merely leaving out female characters. (Which is a concern because it’s done so much more often than leaving out male characters, but still.)
It’s that the movie makes it looks like the mother could have saved herself, but chooses not to.
I disagree. It’s our culture which generates all the “more pressing matters”, so critiquing the culture - which is disseminated through movies, TV, etc. - is IMO valuable. You’re welcome to disagree, but that’s our site missions so we do actually have a rule against suggesting that our time would be better spend elsewhere.
I do agree that Cinderella and some of the others you mention are also very sexist. But the judgment of which movies is the MOST sexist is a personal one - what bothers one person may not bother the next as much, even if they share a general concern about gender equality.
While I generally agree with you that there should be more female characters in film, particularly in 3D animated feature films where female leads are rare, I can a see a flaw in your logic.
You ask the question “Why didn’t the mammoth put his trunk around both of them and save them both?” and claim that there is no explanation other than that her death was necessary to further the plot, suggesting that her death was insufficiently supported by the reality presented in the film.
While her death does further the plot, it is not without logical support. Consider that the baby probably weighs between 10 and 20 pounds while the adult human mother may weigh between 100 and 150 pounds. The mammoth would only need to wrap his trunk around the baby with a small amount of pressure in order to lift its small weight. However, in order to lift the combined weight of the baby and the mother, a total of nearly 10 times as much weight, the mammoth would have to wrap his trunk significantly tighter, applying much greater pressure. While this would make it possible to lift both mother and baby from the water, the baby would be crushed to death as the pressure would be as much as if the mother were to stand on the baby.
So, yes, it would have been good to have more significant female characters in the film and in other 3D animated films. But, no, there really is a logical reason for Manny the Mammoth to not lift both baby and mother from the water at the same time. He would have to move the baby to safety first and then go back for the mother, by which time she was tragically swept away by the current.
Mocco,
I imagine the next time I see the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants I will lament about a lack of male characters.
First, there were plenty.
Second, TSotTP is basically a chick flick, created for an intended audience of women. Ice Age, on the other hand, is billed as a “family” flick. It’s supposed to be for everyone, not just for guys. Which makes the absence of women (half of the intended audience!) glaring.
In case you haven’t heard of it, I would point you to The Bechdel Test. Ask yourself how many “family” movies - or God, even how many romantic movies intended for a female audience - pass the test. I’m sure you can think of some that do. But there are a lot that don’t. An amazing number of movies that don’t. And that says something.
Regarding the point that Manny didn’t want to save the mom because he hates humans: Then why did he help the baby at all?
But the fact that Manny didn’t bother to save her (after battling two rhinos to save Sid, whom he didn’t like), isn’t nearly as disturbing as the fact that she doesn’t make the slightest attempt to save herself. She goes to heroic efforts to get the baby just that far, and then basically says “My work is done, my baby is in safe hands.”
But really, even if all she cares about is saving her baby, she would continue to make every effort she can to save herself because her baby’s survival would depend on her. Handing your baby to a wild animal is the same as ensuring that he will be eaten or die of exposure by the next day, so basically she’s gotten that far just to give up.
I know this is the point where people will say “Sure, in real life giving your baby to a woolly mammoth would be a death sentence for the baby, but come on, it’s just a movie!” Right, it’s just a movie. A stupid, stupid, sexist movie.
And speaking of “The Bechdel Test” or “Mo Movie Measure,” I’ve talked about that in a few other posts, notably here and here.
I may be missing something here but here goes nothing:
All the characters in are all symbols. Some are easily seen.The big mamoth is ment to represent a human who’s been hurt and has a revelation bla bla bla. I haven’t seen the movie in ages so I will shorten that analysis.
Saying this, does it really matter what the ourward appearance is? Would it change the story if they were all talking trees? What if they were all female? Any outward change in the animation would not change the heart of the story. It would still be a buddy story, the same message would be told.
Everyone has picked up on the fact that the mother is a plot setup. Would it still be sexist if instead of the mother it was the father who gave his life for the child and then slid off? Or even if it was a flying spaghetti monster who gave its life for its young? Isn’t the whole idea behind feminism that you cannot pre-judge something just because it is female? Yes, the plot object was not saved and left the story to considerably simplify it. But just because the symbol was coincidentally a female makes it offensive to women? If it was male, would it be offensive against men? If it is, I guess I agree with C.L. and shouldn’t be writing this. Personally, I would not have batted an eye in either case but your thread has really made me think tonight, and I thank you for that.
So, in conclusion, killing off plot device: Cruel, yes. Sexist, no.
Just so that anyone commenting on this post is aware, I’m leaning towards the “delete button” on any comments that are essentially saying that it’s just Disney, say that this isn’t unique (it happens in every buddy movie and it’s just the way it is), or that any sexism was unintentional and therefore irrelevant.
I apologize, because I think many of the people making those comments are reasonably well-intentioned, but these points have been addressed already in the thread. To summarize:
Disney, advertising, and pop culture in general are extremely powerful in terms of defining the boundaries of normativity. Just because something is light and fluffy, that doesn’t mean it’s not important–from the point of view of this site, that makes it *more* so, because so many people tend to watch it and *not* question what is presented, but nonetheless internalize the messages.
The fact that no one sat around a room and went “Hey, let’s piss off the feminists” or nefariously tapped their fingers all Mr Burns and went “How can I hate on women today?” also makes it worse. Sexism (and racism, and homophobia) does not depend on the sexist person knowing they’re being sexist, nor on their being hateful about it. It’s the default, presumed assumptions about the way gender roles and relationships work, and the relevance of women in society, and the fact that nobody has to consciously set out to be sexist makes it harder to take apart.
And finally, the point that other movies also don’t have female characters, or that buddy movies are always this way, or that plenty of other movies are worse…is making our point for us. If “Ice Age” really were just one movie, we probably wouldn’t care. The fact the we already recognize it as a standard model is why we care.
These three points are essentially the reason this site exists. It has occurred to us that some others don’t think they’re that important, but we continue to think that they are, and you’re not likely to change our mind just by making the points again. So if your posts are being deleted, that’s probably why, and unless you have something more unique and substantive to say, you’re best to go elsewhere.
I won’t go into the question of defining sexism, but let’s go with your general point.
If the gender roles were entirely reversed and a father sacrificed his life, then we saw a (female?) child go through a series of adventures with an all-female cast of characters, it would be a very different movie for a number of reasons. First, it would *not* be typical–several commenters have pointed out that male buddy movies are all over the place. So you can be sure that it would be *noticed*, and likely shunted off as a “chick flick” because in general, movies about men are seen as the default and movies about women are seen as appealing only to women.
Beyond that, it would depend on what other contextual information there was. See, it’s not just the character’s death that matters here. It’s not even just this particular movie. It’s the fact that we see this same kind of theme repeatedly, and that’s why we write about it.
Yes. Because the thing about symbols is that the relationship between signifier and signified is based on a set of commonly agreed-upon meanings. We recognize the symbols because we know those connections, whether we’re aware of the links or not. Change the outward appearance (signifier) and you change something about the connotations.
If the movie changed the things you suggest we’d be making very different points. But it didn’t. They made this movie, in this cultural context and with this set of buddy movie assumptions coming before it. So that’s what we’re talking about.
If I understand right, which is doubtful, this is what the root of the problem: A female “character” which only exists to further the plot portrays females in a bad way.
All I was saying earlier is that the character that fell off the cliff and swam across and pulld itself out and gave the mamoth the big doe eyes then faded away is not a good character, man or woman. If you change it to “the only purpose of his life…” it is just as unbeliveable and unrealistic of a character.
They made the choice (intentionally or unintentionally) to make the character a female, but I would even hesitate calling most of the humans in that movie characters in the first place. More like extras.
If you want to argue that it still has impact, lets take a look at her actions: She sacrificed her safety (jumping off a cliff or whatever) to save her child. I don’t know many people that wouldn’t do everything they could to keep their child safe. Maybe jumping off a cliff is extreme, but its a cartoon afterall =P Isn’t this a good example to set?
Just trying to learn more than disprove you, so any feedback is appreciated.
Please see comment #38.
I agree that there should have been female hunters in the human party and DEFINITELY female tigers fighting with the males. But I have a problem with the argument about the human mother dying rather than having Manny save her - not because it wouldn’t have been more feminist (it might have been), and I totally agree with you that it was a cop-out for the writers. BUT, if she hadn’t died or been somehow violently separated from the baby, there would not have been a movie!
Just like movie characters on their death bed. They have just enough (or just short) time to get out their message then croak.
Actually my point was going to be that Manny isn’t really a mammoth at all, he’s a person. If we’re talking face value we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The only reason he looks like a mammoth is for marketing purposes. (for the kids)
Basically I agree with Lentil Ben’s comment. It’s not so much about the woman being disposable as it is about Manny having Issues with humans. He very reluctantly saves the baby, but only because it’s small and helpless and not a threat. Then he starts to walk away. My impression was that the woman was dying, but they couldn’t figure out how to get that across convincingly in a children’s movie. When she pushes the baby ashore, it’s not supposed to be like “Oh good, a wild animal, now he’s in safe hands,” but simply that she’s using her last failing strength to get the kid away from immediate danger of drowning.
That said, it does get old that it’s always the mother who heroically sacrifices herself. They could have made it the father.
I apologize for the breach of etiquette, but my implication was less sinister then saying that you’ve got better things to do. On the subject of the mother, I don’t understand arguing about whether she did or didn’t sustain injuries from the fall. The fact is yes they wanted her to die, or she could have just as easily leaped across a canyon and grabbed a tree branch, or any other way to safety. The film makers were probably thinking “What a noble act, what a way to go!” Does it make it okay? Maybe, depends on how you see it.
I think I agree generally to your points, but it’s not strictly true saying,
Basically “family” flick is an entire genre, where as ice age is a “buddy film” that is a “family” flick. It’s part of the structure of a buddy film, and I know we don’t want the point said again but I think it’s important.
I think I’ll watch “chick” flicks and contemplate the positive or negative representations of both sexes. I think that arguing about it online just shows people how other people feel about a given situation (as long as they keep an open mind), but I would be foolish to think that anyone, either way will change their mind. So I’ll leave it at, thank you for giving me something interesting to contemplate.
This quote from CL’s comment is my response to about 50% of the comments in this thread.
It’s more the fact that this is how female characters are used the vast majority of the time, whereas it happens relatively rarely to male characters. It’s the imbalance of it that suggests deep down, our culture thinks of women as props (the “love interest”, the “wife”, the “mommy”) and thinks of men as complete human beings who have jobs and quests and life philosophies, etc.
Yes, and that’s potentially acceptable*. Where they screwed up is in making it look like she could have saved herself but opted not to.
*I say potentially because if you count how many movies or TV shows start with the death of a woman as either a catalyst or a convenient disposal for plot purposes, and then count how many movies or shows use the death of men in that way, it’s very imbalanced. Then add to that the fact that even when a man’s death does facilitate plot, it’s rarely women who carry the plot forward, but rather other men…
Ice Age may not by itself be so terrible. It’s the cumulative history behind it, it’s the reasons why filmmakers do certain things without even thinking.
Then they’re in the wrong line of business, for heaven’s sake. They’ve been doing animated children’s movies for how many decades?
Am hoping to look into this phenomenon with Supernatural, a show I love dearly but which fits this to a T…
It’s out there. It’s all OVER the place. Not talking about it or dismissing it as “but this happens all the time” is, IMO, not helpful at all. We shouldn’t expect female characters to be disposable and there only to serve as catalyst for male characters and we shouldn’t be surprised if/when this formula is ever deviated from.
And they still haven’t figured out that kids are a lot more cognizant of what’s going on than they think. Not every kid is a genius, but they’re inquisitive and they see everything.
I’m a little concerned by what I’ve read above, namely regarding the admins deleting all posts that disagree with them, posts from Farkers, posts that say focusing on this movie is a waste of time, etc. I’m more used to sites that allow an open and free discussion, rather than the equivalent of the Rush Limbaugh show where the screeners only let through people who agree with him and/or people who disagree so poorly that they’re easy targets. However, on the off chance that a dissenting opinion might be allowed, this proud Farkette is going to take a shot at it. Yes, Farkette; a lot of us are women. We just don’t think that women are fragile and need “safe” spaces to talk where we’re protected from the trauma of people disagreeing — even forcefully — with us. But anyway …
Before I start, I’ll have to admit I haven’t seen the movie. I really don’t go for cute, and it’s dripping with cuteness. So I’m working with the summary of the plot, and the offensive scene in question, that has been given here. I do have some basic knowledge of and background in anthropology, plot development, emergency services, and other useful things, however, which might give me some perspective.
First, with regard to the plausibility of the mother getting her baby to safety and then collapsing: It’s amazing what a human being, no matter how badly injured, can do in pursuit of a short-term goal. For example, people rescuing fellow victims of disasters (car wrecks, plane crashes, fires, etc.) who then collapse after the person they are rescuing is safe, and turn out to have severe or mortal injuries themselves. The fact that Disney did not think it appropriate to have the mother dripping blood doesn’t mean she was as healthy as she looked, and the fact that she was walking around doesn’t either. What you can make your body do if you just have to do it for a little … bit … more … is nothing short of amazing. Adrenaline helps too.
Second, as to why it was the mother and not the father: Infant care in primitive societies is the responsibility of women. There’s a very simple reason for this: we’re the ones with the milk. Even if the father showed more concern for his offspring than the average male primate, he still couldn’t feed it; without its mother, it would die. Therefore, the person toting that baby around in the beginning is going to be its mother. If the father had, for some reason, been the one with the baby at the start, it would still have to have had a mother somewhere to feed it, which negates the whole plot point of the baby being an orphan. It pretty much kills the whole plot, in fact. The mother, and possibly the whole tribe, would be looking for it. For the baby to be the orphan required by the plot of the movie (as I understand it), the mother has to die; the male parent is the one who is essentially irrelevant here.
There are certainly misogynistic movies out there. Given my preference for movies where things blow up, I’ve seen more than my fair share. There are certainly subtly sexist, undermining movies out there, too (I would have to put “chick flicks” in the latter category, because they announce to men “this is what women are” and to women “this is what you should be”). But — based on how it has been described here — I can’t see Ice Age as being either. I suppose, if this discussion continues, I’ll have to rent it and see for myself.
Maybe I’m looking at this from the wrong perspective. I’m an old-school feminist. I’ve dealt with being refused housing because I was a single woman, being told I could not open a bank account without a man to co-sign it, and being denied jobs solely because “we hired a girl once and she didn’t work out.” I’ve held a job where the home office threatened to fire me if I didn’t put the “real” manager on the phone — they had 50 locations, run by 49 men and me. To me, the important thing is having the legal and social right to do anything I’m capable of doing. If we have nothing more important left to worry about than whether cartoons have the right number and type of female characters, then we’ve won. We can hang up our weapons and go and do all those things my mother’s generation and my own fought for the right to do. In my opinion, the only thing that something like this accomplishes — quibbling over a cartoon in this protective, sheltered environment where only gentle words can be said — is to prove to those who oppose us that we are weak and fragile, and need to be protected from the real world’s harshness. That’s the attitude that led to women being “protected” from the mental stress of participating in politics, the physical stress of holding a job, the strain of making decisions without a male to guide us. I’ve lived in that world, and I don’t want to go back there.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. If you think it’s wrong, then refute it, don’t delete it.
EXACTLY. The vast majority male characters on TV are portrayed as being either incapable of simple tasks like washing clothes, changing diapers, and remembering anniversary dates, or as evil criminals and cold-hearted bastards.
But we don’t mind. It doesn’t bother us.
Look, I get it, it’s like, “…and what made it worse was he didn’t see anything wrong with beating his wife.” But thats not really true. It’s WORSE when someone recognizes that they are doing something wrong (or, appearantly in the case of Ice Age, not doing something ‘right enough’) and then CONTINUES to do it.
The focus should be on INTENT, at least in situations where the “crime” committed is something as frivilous as the gender ratio in a childrens movie. If i intend to run into your car, thats a crime. If i dont, it’s an accident. Both are crappy situations, but such is life. Suck it up. Whoops, I almost said, “take it like a man” - which is to say, don’t let it bother you. Many things in life are much less important than they APPEAR to be. The appearant slighting of women by media is one of those things. The appearant slighting of men by media is also one of those things.
We allow disagreement… but the comment needs to contain an argument or at least a position, NOT just a simple condemnation of what we choose to write about. Let me explain.
First, the vast majority of comments I deleted were short statements using abusive language I don’t tolerate on this site. I’ll assume you see the purpose in deleting that.
The minority of comments I deleted did not contain an argument or a position. They just said, in effect, “This is stupid, you’re wasting your time, get a life.”
Yeah? And? Why do people feel the need to tell us this? There are a kajillion sites where you can discuss pop culture without analysis. Why not just roll your eyes at us and go find another site? Why this need to make sure we understand how stupid they think we are?
Because they want to demoralize us with the weight of their opinion? It’s not enough for them to just make fun of us at Fark or any other website, they need to get their views aired here, too, or they cry “unfair”?
I don’t think I owe people space on this site to complain about this site. That’s like expecting a TV show to interrupt itself every five minutes for a one-minute interview from someone who thinks the show is just stupid and everyone who watches it is stupid and there are much better shows elsewhere, etc.
We’re not deleting the people who disagree with us most effectively–just the opposite, in fact. I don’t know whether you’re going to believe my word for that or not, but the comments from non-site regulars (most of whom have arrived via Fark these past few days) that you can see are the best of the arguments presented against the points we’re making. The ones we’re deleting are generally one-liners telling us to get a life, calling us names and other (worse) non-substantive points. The longer posts I’ve been deleting have been reiterations of the same thing, often aggressive or at best dismissive. They are not, in my opinion (and it’ my perogative as a moderator to make that decision, unless Betacandy tells me otherwise), designed to further a conversation in the spirit of respectful disagreement or moving toward common ground.
You cite a number of misconceptions in your comment in general, including the idea that “safe” space is about women just being too “fragile” to handle conflicting opinions. I do think safe spaces are important, including the ability to be free from references to/threats of violence (not the same thing as “forceful disagreement”) and in order to ensure that people who want to engage in respectful discourse can do so without feeling silenced. Dismissive, condescending posts, telling people to “shut up”, mockery, continuing sexism and other such tactics are silencing. We’re setting the terms of what is acceptable and respectful dialogue, and since there are few places on the internet where those of us who do actually care about this stuff can go without being mocked and dismissed, we set that bar pretty high. Yes, we are “silencing” people by deleting their comments, but you’ll note that I’m not on Fark. If I were, I would expect to be subject to whatever standards of discourse are considered acceptable in that medium.
And we often write about those, too. Many of us have been doing this for long enough, however, that we don’t want to be stating what we consider obvious anymore. Read back through the old posts on the site if you’re really interested. You will also likely find examples of comments or posts where we refute exactly the points that many are making above, sometimes even with less than gentle words.
It is our premise on this site that cultural messages from TV and film contribute to limiting the social options seen as acceptable for and available to women. That is why we are here, that is why we discuss the things we do. This isn’t something that we writers just assumed from birth and started looking for examples of, it’s a conclusion we’ve reached after long arduous hours (years) of consideration. It would take a lot more than five minutes perusing one of our posts to find enough material to really shake that, so if that’s something you want to dispute, it will take a lot more work than that.
So, male-dominated movies are bad, but those female-dominated movies are perfectly fine? So much for equality between the sexes.
So it’s prefectly okay for males to be sterotyped as stupid, hyperactive, etc. but it’s not okay for women to be sterotyped as helpless, even though the mother did give her life away so that the child may live(which does not sound helpless in the least to me)? I mean, she could of simply just not try and it would of been no sweat off of her back.
To put this another way, would it of been okay if this had been a science fiction movie where the mother put her child into a life pod while she mowed down aliens who were boarding the ship with a laser rifle?
This is a basic principle of feminist analysis: the focus should not be on the intent, but on the action and on the impact. In your analogy, in both cases, the wife is still getting beaten. The extrapolation from that is, if the abusive partner doesn’t really think that’s a problem and merely intends to teach this woman to be a fine, upstanding member of society, thinking this is the only way she’ll learn, then hey, we should be okay with that.
We’re not, and we’re not going to be. And the reason that’s worse is becasue it’s a hell of a lot harder to convince the perpetrators to give a crap if they don’t see anything wrong with what they’re doing. And in the meantime, the abuse continues.
I’m using your analogy rather than the actual cartoon in question because you brought it up as analogous, not because I think that the cartoon is really the equivalent of wife-beating. The impact of pervasive, sometimes subtle, continuous reminders that women are a) irrelevant, b) self-sacrificial mothers, c) absent when the fun & important things go down is to continue to excuse the treatment of actual women in these kinds of ways, the marginalization of women into certain roles and the dismissal of those of us who argue we want more. When we have to convince people that the problem exists (because hey, they didn’t do it on purpose) prior to even starting to convince them to *change*, then yes, we feel like it’s worse.
So with all due respect, I don’t actually think you “get it”. “Suck it up” is not an argument.
Nutbastard, I disagree that intent should be the focus.
Example: back when there were very few jobs women were allowed to take (let’s say the 1950’s, post WWII), relatively few people ever sat around thinking, “I’m never going to hire a woman because they suck!” But a far greater number followed suit without thinking - they just internalized the custom of hiring only men without questioning it.
If only the overtly bigoted minority had refused to hire women, an awful lot of women would have had jobs from the 50’s on, and perhaps we wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of securing laws that attempt to protect us from such discrimination. But as it was, even people who were not particularly sexist joined right in and made it nearly impossible for women to get good jobs (or even education).
The laws that attempt to ensure fair hiring don’t exist because of people’s intent; they were necessary because of people’s tendency to inherit someone else’s intent, thus saving the bother of having to think for themselves.
That’s how I see it. Your mileage may vary.
No one has said anywhere here that male stereotypes are okay. This site’s focus, however, is not about that.
I really fail to see how this is difficult to understand.
and
No, it ALL sucks, and we do actually talk quite a bit about how men are mis-represented in films and TV, as it’s all part of the same bad equation. It just happens this one article is about one movie in which a woman is portrayed badly.
That said, we do not attempt to make EQUAL time for the issue of bad portrayals of men because this is a feminist site. If someone wants to start a site about how men are badly portrayed, I’m all for it. It’s just not the main focus of this site.
Well, I of course can only speak for myself. But I see a comment such as “this is a waste” as being more positive than is usually recognized. For something to be a waste, there must be something to waste. It’s saying that you’ve got something — intelligence, passion, energy — that could be put to a good use, and this (whatever “this” may be the subject of the comment) isn’t the best use for it.
As for some of my fellow Farkers, well, we’re a rowdy bunch. I think to some extent it’s a test: can the other party stand up to us and give as good as they get, or will they wimp out? Beyond that, there’s no one way to describe us. We have our philosophers and our trolls, our authoritarians and our liberatarians, right-wingers and left-wingers and moderates, and just about anyone else you can think of. The things that unite us are a love of laughing at the absurd (though we can have thousand-post flamewars about whether or not something is in fact absurd) and a respect for those who will stand up for themselves, even if we think they’re wrong.
Anyway, I’m not trying to threadjack this. I’ve been a forum moderator too long to agree with the common belief that meta-discussion is always on topic. Enough about my opinions about your opinions about other people’s opinions about your opinions; did I actually make any sense with my analysis of Ice Age?
…and with the “this one article” in mind, I would encourage people to read *MORE THAN ONE ARTICLE* on a site filled with discussion about what we appreciate, what we dislike and what we’d like to see changed in tv and movies before making commments filled with assumptions.
Actually, it was posted here, on this site, that it was okay; read the comments. Read nutbastard’s response to Denim, spefically.
I’m not interested in having the “ZOMG, a handful of people expressed Opinion X, therefore the whole tenor of the site MUST be this, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary!!1!!eleven” debate.
Sorry, Zimmy, I should have said none of the AUTHORS here have said that in any posts. Commenters may express other views, of course.
I’m the best judge of what’s the best use of my time, and I find someone else telling me what I should go do with myself presumptuous at best.
Also, most of the people who said CL was wasting her time also called us stupid or morons, so I’m not seeing those comments as some sort of backhanded compliments.
Yes, but there’s a third option: some people prefer not to engage in battles of wit with unarmed opponents. While a lot of you have proven to be thoughtful, intelligent people (whether we agree or not), the vast, vast majority were just being abusive. It may be you have no idea how outnumbered you are by Usenet-style trolls, posting generic statements of abuse on autokey, submitting comments as fast as possible. I’d never dealt with a traffic spike like that before.
Now I’ve changed some configurations so new commenters don’t get their comments onto the blog until I’ve had time to approve them. That’ll make a huge difference.
If I may, I’d like to make a quick response to the “so it’s okay for men to be stereotyped as hyperactive buffoons?” string of comments…
1. No, it’s not okay.
2. But it doesn’t really happen in Ice Age. The reason is that there’s more than one male character with more than one type of personality. Sid is hyperactive and stupid, but Manny is thoughtful and realtively more quiet, and Diego is extremely intelligent (not to mention a very noble character, by the end). The movie doesn’t “stereotype” men because it shows that men can have more than one type of personality, and can have more than one role to play in a story. They can be villains, heroes, or comic relief sidekicks.
BUT when a movie only has one woman character, suddenly she becomes representative of ALL OF WOMANHOOD, and always ends up as a tired stereotype. I.E., the self-sacrificing mother archetype. If the movie had showed more than one type of woman playing more than one type of role, then it wouldn’t be so much of a stereotype!
That’s the way that I view it. I realize that IRL there are many women who engage in “stereotypical” feminine behaviors, etc. In an ideal world, it shouldn’t be a problem when these are shown in movies. What IS a problem, though, is if “stereotypical” roles are the only women’s roles shown in movies. If there’s only one woman in a movie, and her only role is to sacrifice herself nobly so that some men can go and have an interesting adventure, then that’s a) a flaming stereotype (see comments above) and b) extremely problematic. It would be problematic if the men in Ice Age were only shown as stupid buffoons, too. But they’re not.
I’m new here, but given that nutbastard’s name does not appear in the list of authors (left column, up a ways) I think he(?) is a random wandering visitor, probably a Farker. The “nobody” in question appears to refer to the site authors, who have explicitly said (see BetaCandy above) that “…it ALL sucks, and we do actually talk quite a bit about how men are mis-represented in films and TV….”
No, it’s not right to always portray male characters with bad stereotypes. No genuine feminist will dispute that, because at its heart, feminism is about equality. Until all of us are free, none of us are free — men or women. A world in which it is acceptable to treat some people badly because of their sex is a world in which it is acceptable to treat any people badly because of their sex. Standing up for the rights of others is not just altruism; the rights you save may be your own.
And no, movies that portray women badly and movies that portray men badly do not balance out some cosmic equation. That would be like putting one hand in boiling water and one in ice and saying that on the average, your hands are at a comfortable temperature. Two wrongs don’t make a right; they make twice as much wrong.
That said, every movie, every book, every comic strip, every game, does not need to be a perfectly balanced, idealized, stereotype-free portrayal of all possible politically-defined groups. There are dorky, awkward men. There are clueless, shallow women. Saying that neither one can ever be depicted in literature (including its visual forms) risks turning it all into some bland “socialist realism” in place of art. When all is said and done, it is not the Disney cartoon that a child sees once or twice that shapes his way of looking at the world and the people in it; it is the people most closely surrounding him, and their actions and attitudes, that make all the difference. Where did your beliefs come from? From your parents? Your mentors? Your peers? Or some movie you saw once? All the movies your children will ever see will not have the influence that you will have by teaching your daughter to change a tire and teaching your son to change a diaper.
I did my marching in my youth, but I think I’ve done more for the cause of women’s equality simply by buying parts to repair my car, by fixing male friends’ computers, or even by revealing to my somewhat surprised gaming guild that I was in fact a woman old enough to be mother to some of them (or grandmother to one lil’ guy). The men who work at several auto parts places (and a junkyard or two) in my town know that it’s not true that women can’t fix cars, because there’s one who comes in with grease under her fingernails to buy parts for hers. My friends think of me, a woman, first when their computers turn into large, awkward paperweights. And there’s a whole bunch of gamers, mostly 18-25 males, who know me as a buddy, someone just like them, who just happens to sound different in voice chat. Real people that you really know win out over literary stereotypes every time.
It comes down, in the end, to how we live and what examples we set. To quote Robert Heinlein: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” If we could all do that (well, modified by circumstances; few of us have hogs available to butcher), the negative stereotypes in movies and TV shows would seem just as laughable tomorrow as the swooning, vaporous girls in 18th-century romances do today.
Incidentally, am I the only person who is really peeved by “The Dangerous Book for Boys”? I would have killed for that book when I was a little girl … I grew up on things like very old Boy Scout handbooks, which might explain some things about me. Why couldn’t that just have been “The Dangerous Book” or something? As much as I want that book, just for a kind of nostalgia thing, the title keeps me away. Am I being foolish and inconsistent here?
Thank you, Nenena. You’ve expressed my thoughts, as well.
The thing is, women aren’t portrayed badly, unless you think willingness to sacrifice oneself so that one’s child may live is a bad quality. But in the case of movies like Ice Age, gender portrayals are really a non-issue. If you switched the voices of the characters with those of the opposite gender, suddenly everyone would be female. But would the movie be any different? Besides the voices, no, it wouldn’t. It would be exactly the same.
EDIT: When I say “in the case of movies like Ice Age,” I mean movies in which all, or the majority, of the characters are animals. Most of the time, their genders are determined by their voices.
Worldwalker, I suspect that the other authors here do the sorts of things you describe in addition to writing for a media criticism blog - I know I certainly do. But this particular site is a place specifically created for the criticism of sexist tropes in media, and that’s what we do here. And we do believe that media has a huge impact on people’s beliefs and behaviors, especially through the repetition of damaging tropes.
Regarding The Dangerous Book for Boys, there’s actually a companion volume out now called The Daring Book for Girls. I’ve seen some analysis that decries the gender essentialist-like stance of separating the content out into two books, though, and I would tend to agree with you that The Dangerous Book for Kids or something would have been a better choice.
Derek, see, if some of the characters had female voices, our reactions to the film would be very different, though.
That’s the point. Your reactions to the movie are based on a mere impression. And not necessarily an accurate one.