<![CDATA[ - Jezebel Comments]]> <![CDATA[ - Jezebel Comments]]> <![CDATA[]]> @tcscheese - Yes, the rise of agriculture over hunting-gathering did seem to have a lot to do with male-female social stratification. In part it's because it had to do with social stratification in general. Agriculture allows people to amass stuff in a way that hunting and gathering don't; amassing stuff means some people amass more stuff than others. It also allows for a class of people who do work other than get food, so it changes what kind of stuff is available to be amassed. On the male-female front, children become one of the "stuff" that gets amassed, since you need more children to work in the fields, and so women, the ones who bear the children, also become "stuff."

Of course, this is all a gross generalization.

Ricki

]]> <![CDATA[]]> That's not Anna Paquin?

HeatherNumber1

]]> <![CDATA[]]> ...Why do movie studios keep trying to appeal to guys? GUYS ALREADY HAVE GUY MOVIES, that's why bullshit like Die Hard keeps getting made. Not to mention "Oscar worthy" crap like There Will Be Blood aka the most boring movie of all time.

amowls

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @clevernamehere: I know this thread is long dead and I'm not sure if you're going to get a chance to see this. Also this is tangential. But--strictly sociologically speaking--does the decline of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and the rise of the agricultural lifestyle have anything to do with the rise of the patriarchal stratification that seems to be so common in many human societies? Since you are very informed and articulate on the topic of the historial structure of primate societies, I figured I'd throw it out there.

I have absolutely no formal training on the topic--I'm just a dork who loves to read like Discover and Wikipedia and stuff, and I took a few random classes in college about the rise of society and sociology in general.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle kept men and women on a more even keel sociologically. Like, if you have to spend all day watching out for predators, gathering nuts, running from predators, AND carrying around an infant or a toddler while you're doing it, you better not have more than one kid who's still young enough to need to be carried. You can't really run from a saber-toothed tiger if you have to carry a 6-month-old AND a two-year-old, y'know?

If you don't have a permanent shelter or food source, you can't be hobbled by constant pregnancy or constantly shlepping around infants. I seem to remember some writer theorizing that hunter-gatherer clans averaged only two or three children per couple.

Then with the rise of agriculture, women didn't have to lug around their infants to find food and dodge predators, because they had a permanent and reliable source of food and shelter. More food meant more children. More children meant that women were pregnant or caring for infants more often. Being frequently pregnant, or recovering from childbirth, or nursing an infant, is pretty strenuous, no matter WHAT century you live in, so there's a sociological disadvantage right there. You can't run out and till the fields and bring in a whopping great harvest when you're pregnant or nursing, y'know?

And all the while the men were the ones using their greater physical strength to till the fields and tame the livestock to produce food and status. So now you have men in a position of physical and economic power. Tada! Patriarchy!

I just thought it was interesting. Some theorists seem to blame agriculture for every societal ill, and I don't know enough about any of this to take a stance one way or another, but I just thought I'd share.

tscheese

]]> <![CDATA[]]> I find it ironic that men, in an effort to demonstrate their manliness, claim that their balls will fall off if they watch a movie about girls. Isn't it decidedly unmanly to have such weak balls?

Ricki

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @allora: @ceejeemcbeegee: All my male friends adore Bring It On. Probably because of the bit where Kristen Dunst and Eliza Duskhu get into bed together. Then again, my male friends are also obsessed with High School Musical and can occasionally be heard referring to each other as 'Wildcats'. So I'm not sure they're a great sample.

@distressedpony: I totally agree. I can't stand that kind of ditzy-girl 'chick flick' at all; the ones I like are usually the ones that my male friends also really enjoy (10 Things, Mean Girls, Legally Blonde, Clueless, various Richard Curtis offerings). That suggests to me that the term 'chick flick' is really just a stupid bit of branding to refer to romantic or girl-centrered movies, which, when they're actually good, can appeal to both sexes. If anything the term itself puts guys off watching otherwise good movies because they're afraid of ball shrinkage.

rah29

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @allora: Bring It On is not a "Chick Flick". It's masterpiece.

ceejeemcbeegee

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @shananigans: Yeah, based on Isla Fisher's outfits alone, this looks to be Shopholic on psychotropic drugs. I felt a bit guilty for not hating the Shopaholic books (read the first three), but Sophie Kinsella has a hit-or-miss flair for comedy, and the hits made the books *just about* not a waste of time.

What confuses me most is the decision to Americanize the story. Why, why, why? Becky Bloomwood isn't Becky Bloomwood if she's not a Londoner first and foremost.

cautionarywhale

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @distractedbyshinyobjects: My background is in the social sciences, but I've done very little anthro or cross-species stuff so I am in no way an expert

I used to work in a child development lab that was associated with a primate lab and the primate folks gave a presentation on primate development. Some primates, like gorillas, are polygymous. But that doesn't really mean males dominate the females, it means males dominate other males and get all the females to breed exclusively with him. Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, kick the boy monkeys out at puberty and they have a very dangerous time of boy monkey gangs (seriously) while they look for a new group to take them in (they get kicked out of the first one so there is no incest). I think it is quite possible that early human (and pre-human) societies had a mix of these two arrangements. Partly a personal opinion, but based on what I know about primates.

I don't think there has to be a psychological drive on the part of men to subjugate women. I think it took thousands of years for societies to develop and during that same period, human brain functioning was increasing. We know polygamy is an element of patriarchy and it is easy to think that it therefore benefits men, but on a basic survival level you can say it benefits women more. Every woman gets to breed with the toughest male with the strongest genes. But for every guy with 6 wives, 5 guys don't have a wife at all. So women could have supported early plural marriage as in their own best interest, screwing over a lot of guys, and indirectly leading to patriarchy. So they might not have been dumb or weak. And we know not every human society followed a patriarchal model, so nothing is universal.

I'm really interested in gender as a social construct, but I'm very wary of a biological explanation. There is a huge amount a variety within genders. A lot of gender differences aren't really that pronounced when you look at meta-analyses (lots of studies averaged together). The gender similarity hypothesis (female research at Harvard- School of Ed I think) is one example. I'm sure there are some innate differences, but we may not ever be able to tell what they are.

I am taking up so much Jezebel space right now, but here's an example of what I mean. From infancy, humans prefer looking at female faces over male faces. You could assume from this that it is natural for both genders to objectify women (which ignores all the species where the male is prettier than the female but whatever). But a couple of years ago I heard a presentation from a guy who was studying the infants of stay at home dads. It turned out that those infants preferred male faces. I don't know if it has been replicated, but it does suggest that something people assumed was innate that could explain human behavior might actually be the result of nurture- the face you look at most as an infant is the one you prefer.

clevernamehere

]]> <![CDATA[]]> I would love that outfit 100x more if she didn't have that plaid curtain draping over her entire body.

Poison Jam

]]> <![CDATA[]]> I love a chick flick but I feel like they are ruining Shopaholic. Yes, she spends a lot of money but she's not tacky.

shananigans

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Bah. I'll take True Romance over anything Owen Wilson or Isla Fisher has ever been (or will ever be) in.

Go Like Hell Machine

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @redheadedstepchild: I was just looking at the above Naomi Watts post and trying to remember what movie I'd watched this weekend with Liev Schreiber in it. She's All That! Between that and Clueless it was a very teen movie Sunday, and it was awesome.

TrixieBelden

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @clevernamehere: This is an interesting discussion for me because it seems like you've had some education in this area (ether formal or self-governed) and I respect that. I only had three sociology classes in college, devoted to womens studies and the ideas of socialized sex and gender, so it's clear I still have a lot I can learn.

I get what you're saying about a slippery slope. The problem I have with making female subjugation a totally physical thing (the men were stronger and the women were out of commission for almost a year at a time) is that there has to be psychological motivation behind that on the part of the man. What's to stop us from saying then that men dominated over women because men are biologically more aggressive and less rational than women.

I'm just saying that there has to be a psychological basis for this - even in the more primitive manifestations of homo sapiens.

distractedbyshinyobjects

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Because I'd fiiind yooou.

MsKiyum

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @distractedbyshinyobjects: Obviously, women aren't just different in plumbing. There is a difference in physical strength and only one gender ends up walking for a duck for 9 months while reproducing. That to me is enough to explain the subjugation of women. Sure, there may be innate differences in mental ability or personality, but at this point we can't separate culture and biology. 50 years ago it would have been totally reasonable to say women were less intelligent than men, today's college demographics would shock a mid century sociologist brought back to life.

While we don't know of any matriarchal societies, we know of matrilineal ones like the Minangkabau. Some animals like rhesus monkeys are matriarchal (the Minangkabau are kind of similar to them in the way they send the boys away).

And once we start saying things like men are biologically less capable of emapthy, we open the door to people saying women are biologically more emotional and less rational than men. I can't object to the second and agree to the first.

clevernamehere

]]> <![CDATA[]]> That article was so stupid it made my head hurt. They say all this stupid shit and then ignore there was nothing "manly" about The Devil Wears Prada at all and no mention of Juno or 27 Dresses whatsoever. Why? Because it would prove William Goldman's now 40-year-old addage about Hollywood: "Nobody knows anything." They don't know what makes anyone see a movie and never will.

And Nora Ephron is talentless and always has been.

Macloserboy

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @beatrice3000: Your brother probs wanted to see the smoking hot Penelope Cruz on the big screen!

vivresavie17

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @clevernamehere: I'm not saying its a flaw (who decides what a flaw is anyway - men wouldn't think something that gave them all the power in the world was a flaw)

It's just about viewing the world differently and I think, throughout history men have been not so good at stepping into the emotional shoes of others. And women have been better. It doesn't have to be a very big natural difference at all for it to have monstrous consequences.

But you can't tell me that with all that's physiologically different between men and women, that isn't manifested even the slightest bit in personality. I just can't think of any other thing that could have made such a huge impact and become a self perpetuating cycle.

If men and women are exactly the same in every respect except plumbing, then that's saying that women back in the early days of human socialization were either dumb, or submissive - almost that they deserved what they got. There were Jezebelles back then too - which means something has to account for the way male and female humans have been socialized differently throughout history.

distractedbyshinyobjects

]]> <![CDATA[]]> I was surprised when my younger brother wanted to see Volver with me. He's not into "chick flicks," but he really liked that one.

@Gumbina80: Set it Off has gunfights and car chases in it.

beatrice3000

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Umm, I would actually just be satisfied if they made "chick movies" that made it seem like anyone involved had actually met a real woman.

Kate Hudson's characters in anything ever? Jessica Alba's characters in anything ever? Could we please have some movies where 'ditzy girl falls over' isn't short-hand for endearing character! Sigh. The whole 'women plus mainstream comedy' thing is rarely done well, but it can be done: Legally Blonde, 10 Things (In fact Karen McCulluh Lutz and Kirsten Smith have an awesome hit rate of intelligent, female-led joys), Kissing Jessica Stein, Enchanted (before the obligatory make-over and tragic last half-hour), anyone else with some good recommendations?

distressedpony

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @AbbyNormal: Hey, my grandpa was a Pearl too! I don't believe he squeezed a stint in the Army with his careers of drunkenness, family desertion and bigamy, so we probably aren't related.

Mrs. DeLesseps To You, Dahling

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @AbbyNormal: Basically you're saying he's the living version of "A Boy Named Sue"?

Xavoc

]]> <![CDATA[]]> i'm straight and i enjoyed SATC. It was well-made television. Decent stories, good actors, cursing, enough passably funny scenes, occasional nudity, no commercials, plus you could play the location game- ie, name the corner/street/restaurant where they shot a scene (this game works well for Law and Order too).

That's another thing- it portrayed NYC as the center of the universe, which appealed to my smug sense of superiority about being born and raised here.

Also, handled right, i found that a working knowledge of the show made for good conversation material with girls i was interested in (while the show was still on).

No shame for a straight dude to enjoy Sex and the city.

It was the whole cult surrounding the show, and the social aesthetic based on the show that so many young women affected, that was truly annoying.

Mr. Guy

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @distractedbyshinyobjects: I'm not big on saying any gender has innate flaws. If it is okay for you to blame the lack of empathy in men for the patriarchy, then why isn't it justifiable to say that women are naturally weak or stupid or whatever other negative trait and they let patriarchy happen? And they we get into "He can't help it, he's just a man after all..."

@BeAgrestic: I agree. No one should be dragged to a movie they don't want to see because they are in a relationship and owe that person. Go with your friends, go alone, you don't need your significant other to hold you hand through everything.

Just don't say it is because your balls will fall off if you watch it. Watching a movie isn't going to emasculate you.

A couple of years ago I was living in DC and went to see How to Lose a Guy in 10 days (shut up). Five 20 something guys were sitting behind us, critiquing all the romantic comediess they'd seen in the last year. And they weren't gay- the hotness of the leading ladies was a big part of the critique. I still haven't figured out why these boys had such a thing for romantic comedies, but their analysis was dead one (Sweet Home Alabama- "But it's okay, the other guy has money too!")

clevernamehere

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @BeAgrestic: Ha-- my grandpa's name is Pearl. Okay, Southerners and all, but yeah. Pearl. He is a heavily decorated veteran, which probably has as much to do with his being a hard ass as his need to deal with being name Pearl while in the army.

AbbyNormal

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @lisas: Hmm, I phrased it wrong. I didn't mean that JK wrote about a boy with dollar signs in mind, I mean the phenomenonal popularity of Harry Potter owes at least a bit to the fact that both boys and girls would read it, as girls have no problem reading books with boys as the main character, and obviously, neither do boys.

JessicaLovejoy: Y SO DYKEISH?

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @BeAgrestic: I feel like I should have your avatar. I have a screencap of that. Hmmm. :gets creative:

homeslice

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @ladeedah: Huge fan of Bring it On!! And actually, it's one chick-flick my husband will watch (oh and Legally Blonde, too). I'm assuming it's the short skirts and the one "lift" scene that is really just soft porn for like, 60 seconds.

allora

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @CollegeCamel: When my boyfriend could name three of the four actresses from Golden Girls, I fell in love with him a little more.

tell Dolly Parton again

]]> <![CDATA[]]> The next "Wedding Crashers"? Because they both have Isla Fisher? One actress in common, minus 8th grade humor and hijinks, plus wonky outfits does not equal the next "Wedding Crashers."

BDizzy

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @deadbeat old lady: "The orange makes it POP." Sometimes I imagine Stacey and Clinton are judging my outfits when I get dressed in the morning. Most times I just grab whatever's clean.

I'm not sure if the it's the appeal of the chick flick that's wearing thin, they're just running out of recycled plots. (Don't get me wrong, I love recycled plots, Bring It On anyone? My adoration of that movie will never cease.)

ladeedah

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @and Begorrah: Absolutely not. Except we had a dog we called Yaya not too long ago, but only because her name was actually Naya and my two year old (at the time) could not pronounce that.

My eeeeevil Sis-in-law has YaYa friends, too. She totally missed the point, btw.

allora

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @homeslice: I'm the same way. Gone with the Wind never really worked for me because one of the men was named Ashely. If that makes me a hypocrit, so be it.

@and Begorrah: exactly. I generally have a big problem with guys or girls forcing someone to see something that they hate under the guise that it's bonding experience. My decision to not force a guy to take me to SATC has quite a bit to do with my not wanting to be dragged to a torture porn movie.

BeAgrestic

]]> <![CDATA[]]> And all this time I thought that "Wedding Crashers" was a dude movie (complete with handjob scene and bare breast scenes) with some token "girly" touches like romance and wedding dresses thrown in.

For my man to be interested in a "chick flick" there would have to be car chases, gun fights, bare breasts, and/or scenes of masturbation gone awry. In which case, there'd really be no point in calling said movie a "chick flick."

Gumbina80

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Archetype: My boyfriend watches Golden Girls too! And, now that I think of it, Sex and the City...and I don't watch either...but I promise he's straight!

CollegeCamel

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @BrutallyHonestBabes: Mine would actually ship me off to the theater with mini bottles of wine and some friends and then pick our drunk asses up.

He's sweet like that :-)

And, he loves Dorothy.

Archetype

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @BeAgrestic: I'd rather a girl have a gender neutral name than a boy. Because I'm sexist? Or gay? Something.

homeslice

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Hamsterpants: My mom and her fellow Southern middle-aged ladies call themselves the TaTas. Totally different, with a totally different implication, and I love it.

tell Dolly Parton again

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @and Begorrah: OMG, the Rectal Braid again. Oh Cosmo, quit making shit up so the popular kids will talk to you.

Hamsterpants

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Archetype:
Ha! Am I married to your BF? Cause mine is ditto! :)

BrutallyHonestBabes

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Archetype: Yes and French Connection, and like that -- much of which she bought in second hand shops or in sales -- but she still was a compulsive shopper which is where the plot comes in ;)

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Hamsterpants: Oo, you can open for my new band, Rectal Braid, when we go on tour!

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @deadbeat old lady: Stacy and Clinton would hate me. I am very matchy-matchy. And proud of it. I was wearing a lavenderish color yesterday and was seriously bummed that I did not have lavendar or at least lilac shoes.

Hamsterpants

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @deadbeat old lady: Aw, random newlines, I don't like you at all. You don't gooooooo. Where did you come from?

ali is a cranky whiner

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @and Begorrah: The whole thing reeks of testicles to me.

Heh, there's my new band name - The Reeking Testicles.

Hamsterpants

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Hamsterpants: Stacy London would say "it doesn't *match*, but it *gooooooooes*" wit

h some circular hand motions around the entire clothed area. Having said that, this is a totally retarded outfit to wear in real life but it's going to look pretty vibrant and awesome in a theater.

ali is a cranky whiner

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @distractedbyshinyobjects: Wow. I did make it up!

I'd totally be into Harriet Potter.

redheadedstepchild

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Hamsterpants: Am I alone in thinking that "YaYas" should only refer to one's tits or Greek grandmother?

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @littlemissvan: AND - I love your name and avatar :)

distractedbyshinyobjects

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @littlemissvan: My thought is that at least part of it has to be natural. Perhaps socialization has deepened the divide between them. In fact, it definitely has.

But those early women weren't pushovers, the patriarchy would not exist if something hadn't been natural to start it off.

distractedbyshinyobjects

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @BeAgrestic: As cute as it sounds and looks on screen, if a guy I'd rejected sang a song to me in front of a huge crowd of people, stood outside my house with a boombox over his head, showed up at the airport and tried to stop me from going to the Paris Art School, etc. whatever etc., I would call the fucking cops. When I get dumped I don't boil a bunny, so guys can at least maintain their half of the living-in-reality bargain.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @vivresavie17: and what happened to her gorgeous red hair?!

Oriana

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Okay, now re the outfit in that pic? She has orange (!) gloves, a yellow and green purse, a purple belt and a plaid cape. So this is a movie about a blind shopaholic, no?

Hamsterpants

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @distractedbyshinyobjects: Right, but do women have more empathy than men naturally, or because they are socialized into it?

littlemissvan

]]> <![CDATA[]]> okay y'all, men today are whiny enough, we don't need to make them even more sensitive with this chick flick nonsense. Please, give me a violent movie any day of the week: Chopper, Pulp Fiction, hell, I'd even watch a Scorsese meat-fest before I watch a Kate Hudson romcom.

NotCoolEnough

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @redheadedstepchild: Yes - only she had a daughter. But she told her daughter stories about a boy called Harry.

distractedbyshinyobjects

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @JessicaLovejoy: Boosh and/or Kakow!: Umm. Is there no truth to the JK Rowling writing them for her son/growing out of stories she told her son?

Maybe I made it up in my head?

redheadedstepchild

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Hamsterpants: Heh, it's like the older woman's answer to SATC.

Archetype

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Isla Fisher, you are cute. Let's meet for coffee, mk?

homeslice

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @JennaW: Actually, thinking back to the book, you're right. Didn't she dress from, like, Jigsaw and other more upscale high street stores? Beyond her means, but not Super Kooky Designer.

She also bought lots of books and wine. I read it before I traveled to London and I remember my excitement when I finally realized what Oddbins was. In the book, I figured it was a second-hand shop.

Archetype

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Archetype: I had a loony boss who had a bunch of lady friends who called themselves the YaYas, and I tell ya, Type, those gals made MY ballsack shrink.

Hamsterpants

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @LadyNo: Yes! I always say this when people say there aren't enough good movie roles for women. It's because only women will go see those movies.

I've been told (on this site, actually) that it's because boys aren't taught to value girls as much as other boys. But I think that's baloney. I think the main, maybe the only real difference between men and women is the idea of empathy. Women are good at empathizing with people, both similar and different from them (that's why they are the mothers in the equation) and men simply aren't.

I have to believe this is the case because nothing else explains to me the existence of the Patriarchy. We women aren't stupid. Way back when men were taking over everything and making the world the way it is - women weren't stupid then either, they just had more empathy. Men took advantage of this because they had less.

distractedbyshinyobjects

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @lisas: Some people DO get pissy when girls have boys names. Mine is technically gender neutral, but it was a curse when I was in elementary school in South Carolina.

BeAgrestic

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @JessicaLovejoy: Boosh and/or Kakow!: That's at least why Harry Potter's so popular, I think. I mean, all those Fine Lines books we talk about? I'm sure very few boys read them because the lead characters were girls, and therefore uninteresting.

LadyNo Fondles Sweaters

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Maybe if this movie were on cable, and my bf had drank a little too much scotch, and there was the possibility of boobies, then maybe he would watch it. But that's a stretch. But I don't think that he would be fooled into thinking that this was another Wedding Crashers.

AbbyNormal

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Am now horrified. Becky *never* dressed badly. EVER. She *dressed beyond her means.* There is a huge difference.

There are grafting Chick Flick Klutzy Movie Cliches onto the wonderful Shopaholic story! BOOOOOO!

JennaW

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Hamsterpants: I have a strange adoration for that movie, truly. I think it's because I related to the crazy character, though.

Archetype

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @JessicaLovejoy: Boosh and/or Kakow!: I don't think so, I'm quite sure that Harry was a character in a book before he was a marketing tool. I have faith in the sincerity of J.K. Rowling's creative process.

lisas

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Ha, my BF said once that while watching a trailer for "Divine Secrets of the YaYa Sisterhood" that he could literally feel his peen shrinking - if he ever saw the whole movie I'd apparently have to get a new Mr. Pants.

Hamsterpants

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @redheadedstepchild: dude, that's different. Stick it and Blue Crush are my "cheer up" movies.

BeAgrestic

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Dudes don't avoid these movies because they don't like them; they avoid them because it's girl stuff, and they'll be tainted if they do. Same reason you never put a girl in a commercial for boy's toys. Same same reason people get pissy when boy's names start being used for girls. Because it's girl-like, and being an omg girl is degrading.

lisas

]]> <![CDATA[]]> The word "Shopaholic" alone would turn me boyfriend off. He already has to deal with me.

curlyqmich

]]> <![CDATA[]]> No No No No! The very last thing we need to do is to make guys see chick flicks! What if they start acting like the guys IN chick flicks? BLERG!
@westvillagegirl: this is my point exactly. Most women don't act the the CHARACTERS in chick flicks or chick lit, nor should they.

BeAgrestic

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @LadyNo: Isn't that why Harry Potter had to be Harry? and not Harriet? Because both girls and boys would read it?

JessicaLovejoy: Y SO DYKEISH?

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Archetype: I actually got my brother into the 1 a.m. GG reruns. He does a great impression of Dorothy yelling "Your initials spell BED?"

JessicaLovejoy: Y SO DYKEISH?

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @vivresavie17: She's probably styled by Patricia Field.

I love Isla, but she can't quite pull off the weird outfits like SJP.

Archetype

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @redheadedstepchild: That just means you're breathing.

LadyNo Fondles Sweaters

]]> <![CDATA[]]> So there will be a boobies montage while trying on tops at Bergdorf?

Jessi Ramsey

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @westvillagegirl: Research for what, exactly?

I've totally read the books. And, as I've said about 10 times on this blog, I have absolutely no shame!

Archetype

]]> <![CDATA[]]> What hell is up with Isla Fisher's costumes in this movie, people? Seriously? Because they be lookin a hot tranny mess.

Hey Hollywood, how about you abandon the "chick flick" genre altogether? I won't miss it. I mean, Kate Hudson might, but I won't.

vivresavie17

]]> <![CDATA[]]> You know the movie Unaccompanied Minors? That was based on a story told by a woman on This American Life. They changed her into a boy for the movie because girls will go see movies with a protagonist of either gender, but boys will only go see movies with male leads.

I'm thinking this continues on into adulthood, no?

LadyNo Fondles Sweaters

]]> <![CDATA[]]> So they add two girls kissing and a pillow fight and everyone's happy.

mepo

]]> <![CDATA[]]> Not really chick flicks, but I luvs me a good teenspliotation movie.

10 things I hate about you, she's all that, etc. (Hides head in shame)

redheadedstepchild

]]> <![CDATA[]]> @Archetype: My douchey exbf actually read these books. As "research."

westvillagegirl (exhiled in chicago)

]]> <![CDATA[]]> My boyfriend would laugh in my face if I tried to take him to that movie.

He watches Golden Girls with me, though. So I guess he's got a little bit of woman in him.

Archetype

]]>