Reverse sexism?

Some men (and women) don't even notice how much important- and not-so-important -media(among many other areas in society) is/are very male focused and targeted and dominated, it's just normal to them for men to take precedence. So for men like this, a 'real'(non-'fluff', non-'sexy') film with female primary characters told from a female point of view is automatically unpalatable and not suitable for popular consumption evidently. Just look how little activity you find on this board. Often, (in non-"chick-flick"-that term in itself says plenty) films women fulfill the auxiliary roles of objects/accessories/supportive wife/gf/fiance/mother etc. of the male hero/es. In this film the women are in the foreground and portrayed as self-sufficient, multi-dimensional, possessing & perpetuating their own brands of wisdom. To women's credit, in a film like this the men are not all just objects or one-dimensional straw-men but diverse, distinct individuals. There are good/bad/stupid/intelligent/cold/warm/kind/cruel aspects of both male and female characters. If you have a problem with the rapist being male then you have a problem with reality as most rapists are male, so reality is where you should focus your efforts in instigating change.

There are many male point-of-view pieces of art that I can appreciate and even relate to, it would be nice if men respected women enough to accomplish the equivalent feat inversely once in a while.

I don't think that I can eloquently answer your question but like the poster below me, people see it as "reverse sexism" because it is so rare to have a movie dominated by strong female characters. Yes, there are various tones of feminismisn but the male character of "Boer Bas" (Antonia's boyfriend) didn't seem to me to be a wimp of a man, but rather a very caring individual. That does not limit his "masculinity" but rather reinforce it.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=12818497

It's not "reverse sexism" but sexism. Sexism doesn't only flow one way and it doesn't simply benefit men and disadvantage women. If you don't believe that, try asking the ghosts of the more than one million men who've died in America's wars versus the 100 or so women. Hilary clinton can vote for the Iraq War because she knows she and Chelsea aren't going to die in it.
This movie is the same type of fantasy one sees in romance novels and on soap operas. The result is not a movie in which there are strong women interacting with men in the real world but, instead, a woman who claims to be strong but can only appear strong in a world of either males who are neutered or males who are weak and evil. Even the boyfriend who courts Antonia isn't so much a strong counterpart to Antonia as he is a polite, obediant little boy/lapdog who waits for years until Antonia is good and ready for him.
Think about Hepburn and Tracy in their films. Think about Scarlett and Rhett. Katherine Hepburn and Vivian Leigh didn't need to remove Spencer Tracy or Clark Gable to make themselves appear strong. They could expose their strengths and weaknesses and failures and successes and yet still be strong. They can stand right next to their powerful counterparts and retain their power. They didn't need to diminish those men. Needing to diminish your counterpart is never a sign of strength.

uhuh ... 'reverse sexism'? seems a strange concept. And, yes, I agree with bbraat that sexism is sexism and 'reverse sexism' can then only be 'anti-sexism', but apparently that is not what was meant in the first place. Interesting, though, that this film should be 'accused' of anything. Why would you 'accuse' a piece of art of anything. It is 'there', it is a concept, it is what the artist intended. It has no obligations to the viewer, lest for 'entertaining' her/him. In whatever way you interpret 'entertainment'. Well, maybe fulfil what they paid for to view the film (if at all). Seems to me that we are experiencing something like a conservative / male chauvinist backlash to humanitarian and liberal ideas. Why would anyone expect a film like 'Atonia' to deliver a realistic and balanced view of the world whilst you find films like 'Terminator', 'Die hard', 'Blade' etc. offering blatantly 'male', violent and screwed up views of the world going without reproaches. Just seems males cannot take a view of the world where they do not play the major role and resent women from being dominant. This would also explain much of the reasoning about the strength of the male characters in some of the comments on this board. Another interesting note: coincidentally I saw Baise Moi just before Antonia. There was a lot of discussion in the bonus material on the French banning the picture and whether or not it was pornographic. There is really no comparison between the two films, for sure, but I did find it exhilerating that Antonia should be rated 'R' in the U.S. of A for 'strong sexual content, and for some violence, including a rape scene'. My-oh-my .... rape scenes we have seen galore (Boys don't cry, Freeway, Guncrazy etc.etc.) and violence I will not even mention ... and, yes, all of the named are rated 'R'. But Antonia????? Looks like someone did not want this alternative plot to our dreary world to be seen ... at least in the U.S.

Reverse sexism? Or just Sexism? In this movie? That is just ridiculous. How many hundreds of thousands of films involve a group of males bonding, or fighting together in war, or together in a workplace, or whatever with not a female in sight except for the occasional one-dimensional secretary with a ridiculously short skirt?

I wish movies like this would get made in the US, but apparently the media feels that women are only useful in this country if they are cleaning something or answering the phone. Or look like a model.

there is no such thing as "reverse sexism". Being sexist goes both ways and can be put on either gender. Saying reverse sexism is like saying reverse racism, racism isn't particular to just one race.

No "reverse" sexism but just plain and simple, sexism. Hardcore misandry possibly. Feminism has well and easily demonstrated, in case anyone wasn't already aware, that the male sex has NO monopoly on this sort of thing(in fact it may have demonstrated that women can be the worst perpetrators of all).

Naturally the myriad of Women's Studies scholars have already come out and predictably, assailed you with their apologism for yet another anti-male piece of (sh-t) propaganda by claiming it some brave, artistic practice in contradicting the so-called "norms" of male-dominance and female "one-dimensionality" in film. Anyone with any real sense (and an objective sense of perspective) knows that this is merely pseudo-intellectual candy-coating to publicly "justify" their (not-so)private urge to revel in self-serving, ego-boosting propaganda. Women like this(upper middle class, angry white girls) are a diamond a dozen, just like their treasured "anti-patriarchy" films that they believe are so rare and so opposite from the norm(remind me of the last male, piece-by-piece equivalent to a film like this? And remind me how it could've possibly gotten by in this post-civil rights day and age?).
(Oh and just imagine how the gay element of a "male" equivalent to this film would go down in comparison. Equally empowering? Oh wait, "male empowerment" is just another term for misogyny in this world. )

It has a female target audience. Had I known it before I wouldn't have seen it. I don't think that there is anything wrong about that. Most of the time it feels like a condensed soap opera with added violence.