Do you think the Obviously Democratic shows and movies recently showing women as superheros will...?

Question

achieve their objective of bringing Hillary Clinton to be the next President?
Do you think the subconscious affect of these shows and movies will help in their campaign?

So Rio... you thinks it purely random that suddenly(when watching football), that every commercial was about a new show or movie where the guy is slow, and the woman is some super-hero, spy, or man-butt kicker? Purely random, suddenly(especially at a time when commercial's target audience is men)? Completely throw out the odds of a flood of TV shows like this, at the same time as the first Female Presidential Candidate that wasn't a Socialist, Independent, or some other outlier? You would really bet on randomness?

I'm not a fanatical anything, but this is either blatantly obvious, or one of those random things that you see 'once in a lifetime'.

Yes, History_Schmistory. You got me!!!! All of a sudden after many years, they have realized that they can get more male viewers by having male idiots and female superheros. Yes, your concept of this randomness, with a sudden opposing shift in male psyche is not far-fetched. Mens viewing habits changed overnight, and I'm a conspiracy theorist for not thinking so.

History_Schmistory: You're quite mistaken. You're referring to many years of history.... not packed into one night of commerials while watching Football. It was actually comical and very noticeable(not just by myself). The new movie 'Bionic Women' is one of my examples(thank you). I guess Bookies really do make good money(or maybe they don't, if this is truly that random). It was funny when we finally had seen a commercial where the man was the lead(at the end of the game).

History Schmistory: So, you're saying there isn't a psychological study done on how movies and our surrounding affect our perceptions of gender roles!!!???? Uh Oh!!! The Feminists are going to seriously beat you up for that one!!!!!????? haha. They've devoted numerous studies on the correlation between how our society views gender roles compared to the media portrayal... I'm serious...You're going to catch a lot of crap for that argument.

However, your argument that the movies took time to make, is a valid argument. I wouldn't say that it's completely negates this Hypothesis, but it is definitely worth considering. Although I have seen female lead roles in the past, I have never noticed a trend as compulsive as recently, so I'm definitely going to disagree with you on that(entirely).

As far as providing more evidence... I know that you must be Democratic and you would not accept anything short of a Democrat with his finger up a producer's butt.

Using your argument, you're saying that all 43 Presidents were male by random, and gender roles had no bearing on them. (You state that gender roles have nothing to do with Presidency/Voting).

Also, It's funny that you mention the movie '300', because that movie appeared Pro-Bush/Republican.

Also, you keep using the word 'Conspiracy', apparently for the purpose to demean myself and my question. I never stated it was a conspiracy, or movie execs get paid in envelopes under a bridge. In fact, I didn't really get specific at all. It may very well be, that writers/producers write based on their political beliefs, as opposed to being actually funded for what they write... but even with this being the case, they're still contributing to the 'cause' and still have influence. Maybe it's primarily Feminist Political influences, but for some reason, men are becoming cinematically stupid and weak, out of a comical context(although it is comical).

Answer 1

Um let me think on it .......nope

i do think we need to show masculine men as good men in the media though

Answer 2

Smile. Hillary must be popular in Hollywood. People do what they can to bring some positive changes into our country. They must be sharing their own opinions with the rest of us. I would prefer this kind of campaigning to last 8 years of blatant Evangelical Bush support at any day.

Answer 3

This a rather far-fetched conspiracy theory, don't you think? Hollywood makes movies to make money. Television networks produce shows that will win viewers so they can make more advertising money, simple as that. No left-wing or pro-Clinton conspiracy, just plain, old capitalism.

Edit: You're quite mistaken. You should look at some history. How many of these female superheroes are based on comic books that have been out for years? These aren't new. Lara Croft? A popular game among men for years before there ever was a Tomb Raider movie. Charlie's Angels? A popular 70's TV show among both men and women. How about the new Bionic Women film coming out? Again, based upon a popular 70's TV show, one popular with men and women. Men's viewing habits haven't changed, they've always been receptive to female leads in action roles, in film, tv, and in comics. It's really as simple as that. In fact, the idea of a dominant woman in film long predates the modern era. Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford, and Bette Davis made countless movies playing tough female leads. The idea of the female action hero may be relatively new to movies, but it's solidly grounded in years of books and comics, and can be traced back to at least the 1970's on television (Charlie's Angels, Police Woman, The Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman).

2nd Edit: I can't agree with you. You seem to be suggesting that there's a spate of action movies featuring female leads that are designed on purpose to elect Hillary Clinton as president. First, I've never heard of any psychologic study that would find any correlation of the sex of a movie hero and voting patterns among the viewers. Second, why would these movies come out during a weak movie time of the year (After the summer blockbuster, before the Christmas blockbusters) and some months before the first primary? It would seem a logical time to release them would be the summer of 2008, before or just after the conventions and before the general election. Third, if you consider the writing, casting, and shooting of these movies, they take several years to come into being. Which would indicate that movie studios in competition with each other, have been plotting to work together to put Hillary Clinton into power (beside the fact that many in the industry are on record as not supporting her), which quite frankly, you'd have to provide a little bit more evidence, then a supposed coincidence you noticed while watching a football game. Fourth (reitirating the first point), again, you'd have to prove there's some psychological correlation between female action heroes and voting trends among viewers, and I've never heard of study which confrmed such a correlation exists, I doubt there is one. Fifth and finally, you completely ignored my larger point, this hasn't happened overnight. Movies featuring a female lead that involve at least some action are coming out almost constantly and have been for a few years now, and these movies have roots which long predate them. It appears very plainly that these movies are nothing more than a result of an evolution of sorts in the movie industry, and evolution which can be easily charted. If you're going to claim conspiracy, you're simply going to have to come up with some more convincing evidence then your observation of a perceived coincidence.

3rd and final edit. I think I should be more clear about what I mean when I talk about a study. I mean a study which shows a correlation between movies and voting patterns. Not in perceptions of gender. My suggestion is that there's no evidence that action movies starring women will have any effect on Hillary Clinton whatsoever, especially since I don't think the reason that most people oppose her has anything to do with her sex, but has everything to do with her politics and personality. And I'll almost ignore your last comment as you don't explain how very capitalist movie studios, in competition with one another, several of who's heads are on record as not supporting Clinton, would conspire together in order to get her into power, and that they would do so in such a weak way. Certainly they could make movies that would more blatantly make conservatism look bad. Again, the studios are a capitalist enterprise run by capitalists. They make movies to make money, and sometimes to win awards and gain prestige, and for no other reason. If they were so dead-set against conservatives, then the movies "300" or "Flight 93" never would have seen the light of day.

Answer 4

I don't think it was intended to land Hillary in the oval office. It's just an absurd trend when shows like the thankfully-canceled 'ALIAS' has Jennifer Garner mopping the floor with every man she encounters, yet is nearly outmatched by her female nemeses.

Answer 5

I disagree with your premise. I think that you have just started to notice it. The whole girl-power, men are stupid theme has been growing steadily on TV and in the movies for many years - long before Clinton was in line.

Answer 6

Ah, the old "liberal media" argument. It never ends.

These shows with "superwomen" have no politics whatsoever. By and large, they don't care about current events or social issues.