MovieChat Forums > G.I. Jane (1997) Discussion > Is the internet just sexist?

Is the internet just sexist?


Jeez, it's almost as if everywhere I go on the Internet people just keep making sexist comments then act as if what they said wasn't sexist! I saw this amazing film a long time ago then come to imdb to find that it has a strangely severely low rating of 5.8! I look to the boards in the hopes of finding some reason for why people have such a passionate hatred for the film and to my dismay it's "women aren't cut out for the army!" Are you *beep* kidding me? Jesus *beep* Christ, when will you morons finally learn that women are just as capable as men? Because we're all HUMAN. It's disgusting how do many ignorant idiots there are in this world.

reply

Agreed 100%. I think it's an excellent film and can't understand why the ratings are so poor. People are prejudice narrow-minded buttholes. 8/10

reply

I don't think this movie is remarkably well made, but it's entertaining enough and the acting is solid. it's just easily telegraphed and one can probably hear the premise and walk through the entire movie's scenes without ever watching the film. It's a military "Rocky" and the only real variable comes down to the emotions and politics.

Still, it is entertaining enough and probably more deserving of a higher score than being barely above average. But I don't think the film's ratings have to do with sexism inasmuch as the armchair movie critics that permeate these boards.

then you have the military/ex-military voters who happily chide inaccuracies in this and any film that has to do with the military, reserving the high scores for those who "get it right". This is fair voting, but for the general public we really don';t care about occupational accuracy as much as entertainment value.

The sexism does exist and Yes, people are unaware of their sexism akin to one's unawareness of their racism or ageism or whatever -ism it may be. Whether women are/aren't cut out for military combat is irrelevant as all people are either cut out for it or not. Surely we can talk in generalities, that men have more upper body strength (generally), that men are better geared toward violence (generally), blah blah blah.

But the truth is well presented in the film: That Americans are ill-prepared to see their daughters coming home in body bags; that a "damsel in distress" weakens men's resolve and lowers their resistance to the enemy; that male chivalry will create a higher risk to the missions and prompt commanders to order men unequally; that it's the men (not the women) that are the problem, etc.

i think, for the most part, this film was fair in its treatment and addressed plenty of the issues in its regard. If I could change anything (besides the cliche predictability) I would rip out the Pretenders songs ("Goodbye" and "The Homecoming") as they play off as melancholy and a bit too feminine, all while being very prominent in the soundtrack. I think it did a disservice to the film, making it less gender-neutral than it could have been. I love Chrissie Hynde's voice, but it seemed to set the wrong tone for my enjoyment of the film as it seemed to play to the "abandonment" of femininity when that was precisely counter to what the film was trying to convey- that a woman can be a woman AND a soldier.

But maybe that's just me (and my sexist attitude)







I don’t need you to tell me how good my coffee is.. 
.

reply

[deleted]