Jurassic World discussion (spoilers)

[DinoToyForum]

Interesting, I never saw that as a "Cowering Damsel". I just thought it was a reference to Dr. Grant in JP///.

I can't remember the bit in JP3 where Dr Grant 'gets his legs out'.

[CityRaptor]

I would lie on the ground like that, too if I tried outrunning Rexy in high heels..

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Interesting, I never saw that as a "Cowering Damsel". I just thought it was a reference to Dr. Grant in JP///.

I can't remember the bit in JP3 where Dr Grant 'gets his legs out'.

Nor do I, which is why I see what you do now. 

[DinoLord]

Interesting, I never saw that as a "Cowering Damsel". I just thought it was a reference to Dr. Grant in JP///.

I can't remember the bit in JP3 where Dr Grant 'gets his legs out'.

Claire's crawling away in that scene is reminiscent of Grant crawling away from the T. rex vs. Spinosaurus fight. Of course the latter character's wardrobe was rather different... 

[Halichoeres]

The fact that sexism is not overt doesn't imply that sexism is absent, nor does the director's intention not to be sexist imply that his output is not sexist.

Focus on Claire first. The movie very strongly implies that she's a better person after the completion of her character arc than she was at the beginning. Consider, then, the start of her arc (as emphasized by the script):

• Career-minded and resistant to the idea of having children
• Resistant to male lead's influence

And compare it with the end of her arc:

• Family-minded (with a strong implication that she is no longer resistant to the idea of having children)
• Yielding to male lead's influence

The fact that her arc ends there, and that the end of the arc is the right place for her character to be, logically implies that her starting point was by comparison bad. The noted traits are therefore the wrong traits for a woman in Claire's position to have.

You might argue that Grant has pretty much the same character arc. Sure. The difference is in context: Grant's character arc doesn't reaffirm stereotypical gender roles, but Claire's does. Whether or not the scriptwriters or director intended that to happen is irrelevant; it's nevertheless what happened.

The argument against sexism might be stronger if there were any women in the movie that didn't conform to cliched gender stereotypes. There aren't. The only other female characters in the cast are Karen, Zara, and Vivian. Consider their defining character traits:

• Karen: Matronly, worried, nagging
• Zara: Shrill, matronly, nagging
• Vivian: Worried, supportive of authority figure

In a movie with four female characters, all four fit very neatly into stereotypical gender roles. Whether by design or by accident, it's nevertheless what happened.

The men in the movie also fit into stereotypical gender roles. This is not irrelevant to the sexism argument. It is a point of less practical importance, though, since those stereotypes are less harmful to boys than the female stereotypes are to girls (which is not to say that those stereotypes aren't harmful; just that they're less so).

I gave a philosophy of paleontology lecture just before JW was released. When it was done a 12-year-old girl and her parents came up to me asking for advice about what she should study to become a paleontologist. One of her concerns was how hard it would be to study science as a girl (being male myself, I had to admit that I had no idea). JW had four opportunities to provide her with an inspirational role model and squandered all those opportunities by reaffirming all the ideas she's heard before.

Really well put. Couldn't have said it better. I also wanted to like it but I found all the characters I was clearly supposed to root for really objectionable.

[Gwangi]

I guarantee you that OTHER women who have had children always ask other women when they'll have kids. Or they'll tell them they should have kids.

I'm sure women often do, as do parents of both sexes, but to state that women always do is a little bit, oh, I don't know, sexist.
[/quote]

Semantics, you get the point and the point is that in real life it's a common exchange of dialog among women. Among people in general for that matter. I've been with my wife for 14 years, married for 8 and have had a child for 5 months. I can't even tell you how many times her sister/mother/grandmother/friends/inlaws or the grand majority of the women in her life whether they had their own children or not asked her "so when are you having kids". I'll tell you it's occurred far too many times to allow it's inclusion in a movie to send off red flags and appear sexist to me.

As for Clair's sprawling position, hardly a damsel in distress. Sexy sure, but there is nothing wrong with sexy women...or men, sex sells. We're all just apes after all. She just got done releasing and running from a T. rex and saving three male characters from certain death. I didn't see anyone coming to her aid in that scene.

[SBell]

Finally someone Gets why i Like this films less and less every time i watch it.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-jurassic-world-brutally-killed-its-biggest-hero/

I considered posting the same article here, but you beat me to it!

I find it interesting that everybody is focusing on Claire's character, and yet nobody takes offense that Zara suffered the most horrible, graphic ON SCREEN death in all 4 films--no one else was shown to suffer for as long, or scream for as long, as her. Why? Did that enhance the film? Did it really make the 'threat' seem more real (because a great-white-shark-eating lizard just seems ambiguous in its danger?).

And yes, from experience, anyone wihthout kids wil never stop hearing about how everyone else (not just women, but any couple that could theoretically have children) should also have children. It's a thing people do, and it will never not be annoying (also, it turns out that once you have one, people will immediately ask when you are bringing forth a sibling). It wasn't red flags in the movie--just a foreshadowing of the only arc she was going to be allowed (that she would come to understand that her role is with a manly man and loving children, not being some kind of hard working job haver).

I really wanted to love the movie. I came away mostly 'okay' with it. Perhaps 20 years of waiting for the 3rd sequel built up hopes that the many screenwriters would do better.

[Tyrannosauron]

Semantics, you get the point and the point is that in real life it's a common exchange of dialog among women. Among people in general for that matter. I've been with my wife for 14 years, married for 8 and have had a child for 5 months. I can't even tell you how many times her sister/mother/grandmother/friends/inlaws or the grand majority of the women in her life whether they had their own children or not asked her "so when are you having kids". I'll tell you it's occurred far too many times to allow it's inclusion in a movie to send off red flags and appear sexist to me.

The line in the movie didn't have Karen ask Claire if she would have kids; the line had Karen insist that she would have, or at least want, kids. Historically, the reason that people have been insistent that women must want children is because women have been expected to have children. So, absent any other context, the implication is that Claire must want kids for the same reason any other woman has ever wanted kids, i.e., because it's what she ought to do.

Adding the sort of context that would defuse that criticism wouldn't have been difficult. All they needed was someone insisting that (say) Owen should want kids, or that one of the other two women in the movie shouldn't want kids, and we could fairly infer that Claire should want her own kids for some reason other than the gender stereotype. But that alternative context isn't there; as it is, there's no reason to believe that Claire should want kids for any reason other than because she's a woman and women gonna woman. (That, incidentally, is my biggest problem with the movie: it wound up carrying all this sexist baggage when a slightly less lazy script could have easily left that all behind.)

And why shouldn't it be sexist to ask a woman, "When are you going to have kids?" when that begs that question that she will do so? It's one thing to ask because the woman has already expressed a desire to reproduce; it's another thing to ask because one expects that all women will want to have kids. The latter reasoning is very clearly sexist where the former reasoning isn't.

In any event, the number of people who in fact do such things is irrelevant. The majority of human beings throughout our species' history have been sexist and racist and prejudiced in most any way that someone can be prejudiced. It doesn't follow--at all--that being sexist or racist or otherwise prejudiced is right or just.

[Gwangi]

Focus on Claire first. The movie very strongly implies that she's a better person after the completion of her character arc than she was at the beginning. Consider, then, the start of her arc (as emphasized by the script):

• Career-minded and resistant to the idea of having children
• Resistant to male lead's influence

And compare it with the end of her arc:

• Family-minded (with a strong implication that she is no longer resistant to the idea of having children)
• Yielding to male lead's influence

The fact that her arc ends there, and that the end of the arc is the right place for her character to be, logically implies that her starting point was by comparison bad. The noted traits are therefore the wrong traits for a woman in Claire's position to have.

I love how being family minded is now a sign of sexism. The movie stresses the importance of relationships with other people, with family, with other living things, with life. Claire's character could have been a man or a woman, it didn't matter. Anyone that's too focused on their work ends up suffering for it. There is working hard, and then there is workaholism. Claire was a workaholic, too absorbed in her career to enjoy the company of family, other people, the world. The fact that she's a woman is inconsequential, this is a real world problem for men and women alike. Too many people are too focused on their jobs to stop and enjoy life and its pleasures. This is especially true for positions such as Claire's. I guess those themes cannot be explored through a female character though eh? Because it's sexist to cast a woman in that kind of role?

I gave a philosophy of paleontology lecture just before JW was released. When it was done a 12-year-old girl and her parents came up to me asking for advice about what she should study to become a paleontologist. One of her concerns was how hard it would be to study science as a girl (being male myself, I had to admit that I had no idea). JW had four opportunities to provide her with an inspirational role model and squandered all those opportunities by reaffirming all the ideas she's heard before.

While too absorbed in her work I don't think anyone can make a strong case for Claire's character being stupid. She was a successful business woman in a stressful working environment where she basically ran that entire park and her well being suffered for it. The safety of her nephews compels her to put family first which is a decision I would hope anyone would make. Her quick thinking at the end of the movie ultimately saves the day. The take home message at the end of the movie is that your life, and the life of the people around you are more important than your career. It's a message delivered in countless other stories. Perhaps best delivered in "A Wonderful Life". I don't really see how the actual intention of the film is that hard to grasp.

And what do you mean you "had no idea" how hard it would be to study science as a girl? I hope you just worded that awkwardly. The answer is that if you truly have a passion for something and apply yourself you'll succeed, regardless of gender.

[Tyrannosauron]

I love how being family minded is now a sign of sexism. The movie stresses the importance of relationships with other people, with family, with other living things, with life. Claire's character could have been a man or a woman, it didn't matter. Anyone that's too focused on their work ends up suffering for it. There is working hard, and then there is workaholism. Claire was a workaholic, too absorbed in her career to enjoy the company of family, other people, the world. The fact that she's a woman is inconsequential, this is a real world problem for men and women alike. Too many people are too focused on their jobs to stop and enjoy life and its pleasures. This is especially true for positions such as Claire's. I guess those themes cannot be explored through a female character though eh? Because it's sexist to cast a woman in that kind of role?

I've already said what can be said on the matter--it's an issue of context and history--and I doubt anyone wants to read me repeat the same points. So let me ask this: why is it better for Claire to focus on children than it is for her to focus on her career? Does the movie establish that she's unhappy with her life? Do we get any indication that she's suffered or lost anything of value to her by not having children? The answer in both cases is no; why, then, is focusing on children better for Claire than the alternative?

The script for JW never bothers to establish any character- or story-specific reason for Claire to want children. So, at the risk of repeating something I wrote earlier: given the fact that women are traditionally expected to have children, and given that we've seen no other motivation for Claire to want children, we have no reason to infer any explanation for her character arc other than sexism.

You're right that wanting a family is not in itself a bad thing, nor does writing such a trait into a character necessarily imply sexism. No one has said otherwise. A female character can want a family, but it's incumbent on the writer to push back against the weight of history to show that the character has a stereotypical trait for a reason other than the character's being a stereotype.

And what do you mean you "had no idea" how hard it would be to study science as a girl? I hope you just worded that awkwardly. The answer is that if you truly have a passion for something and apply yourself you'll succeed, regardless of gender.

I worded it exactly the way I intended to word it. It's simply false that the same amount of work will yield the same success for different people. If she wants to get an academic position comparable to mine, that girl will not only have to study and work as hard I did; she'll also probably have to put up with colleagues who take her less seriously, students who show her less respect, and most likely some form of sexual harassment. Even if she doesn't have these problems in fact, she'll go through the entirety of her career having to worry about them because she'll have female colleagues who do have those problems. I've never had to worry about problems like that, much less deal with them; I therefore don't have any idea how much harder the road will be for her than it was for me. But I can be relatively certain that it will be harder for her, or for comparable scholars of other genders or races, on the basis of plenty of anecdotal evidence from friends and colleagues (which admittedly proves very little) and statistical evidence from academic studies (which prove quite a bit more; see, for example, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/193 or http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf or http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873). I've reaped many benefits of a culture built on thousands of years of beliefs and practices designed to benefit people like me, so no, I don't have any realistic idea of how much harder someone of a different gender would have to work to achieve the same level of success (such as it is) without those benefits.

If that's what that girl has to look forward to--and likelier than not it is--then will it matter if the sexism is subtle and systematic rather than overt and intentional? The result is the same either way. And it's the same deal with JW.

[Simon]

Cheeze and crackers, guys - can you take this discussion off-line, or to a political forum?  This really, REALLY doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand.

[tyrantqueen]

Cheeze and crackers, guys - can you take this discussion off-line, or to a political forum?  This really, REALLY doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand.

I agree. I thought political and religious topics were not allowed.

7. Topics concerning politics and religion are discouraged.

[Patrx]

Indeed, we're moving into pretty deep and turbulent sociopolitical waters here folks. Time to get back on topic. If you wish, you can of course take the current discussion to private messaging.

[DinoToyForum]

Yeah, as tempting as it is to respond, let's put the sexism discussion aside now and agree to disagree.

[ITdactyl]

...and the film got a nod from a fan...

who seems to have altered the rex arms to the proper position ()

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOgYU2lanBg