MovieChat Forums > The Croods (2013) Discussion > Is the film sexist?

Is the film sexist?

posted 10 years ago by keshidragon
31 replies | jump to latest

did anyone else think the tone of the film was pretty harsh towards men?

i mean we have this central character, a pretty and intelligent girl who saves the family's lives over and over. the second this dude meets her, he starts beating her up, holding her down, getting her to 'make fire' as if it comes out of her mouth. it's not long before he's dragging her around like some kind of plaything, just because he finds her cute or whatever (he obviously finds her attractive)

as the film goes on, she literally ends up getting shoved in a log and carried around. she says she needs to get out, that she has a reason to live, and he just replies "not any more :)" no-one cares about her safety (to the point where she almost falls off a cliff) yet everyone expects her to help and protect them.

i mean i know the genders are reversed but don't you think that's bad? isn't it wrong to portray people like they're practically worthless, just because of their gender?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TardisOperator 10 years ago

Wow. This is great. You actually believe that sexism only applies to women (and based on your colorful comments, I'm guessing that racism only applies to blacks)? You claim that it's fact, no need for discussion, and for the less intelligent of us to go an do some research. LOL.

FACT: Judging ANYONE differently solely because of their sex, race, religion, etc.. qualifies as racism, sexism, etc.. Being so obviously biased and hateful towards men (and who knows who else makes your list), you are becoming what you despise the most.

Back to the movie and the question at hand. I don't think the movie was overtly sexist, but it was just poorly written and poorly thought out. I believe they tried to make it entertaining to everyone (adults, teens, and children) and ended up failing across the board. It had it's moments and the voice acting was great, but the script was absolutely atrocious.

[–] putty180 10 years ago

That is pretty much exactly what I am thinking. I do not get how someone can just flat out say that you cannot sexist towards men. I always hate it when people refer to someone being racist against a white person as reverse racism, no it is just straight up racism. If you are sexist against a man or a woman you are just sexist there is no other word for it.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Savage_Pacifist 10 years ago

...um thanks for playing but please try again. Racism goes both ways. Sexism goes both ways. Rape goes both ways. Do you think that all white men are privileged? You must be denser than your posting makes you seem.

Some people just get way too serious around here

[–] cgraves04 10 years ago

Racism and sexism are institutions/systems, not things that just hurt your feelings. Women get beaten and raped at much higher rates than men because of sexism. Black people and other people of color are murdered, marginalized, and exploited because of their skin color. But men are not refused employment or education or have violence enacted upon them solely because they are men. White people are not refused housing, education, and jobs solely because they are white. People can be prejudiced against, yes. You can be disadvantaged. You can go through hardship. You can be bullied. But you are not oppressed based on your status as a man or as a white person.

[–] nathanwaynehicks 9 years ago

Nonsense.

Most people have rejected that glib definition that was created in the identity studies departments of universities. Your definition is not official, just the preferred definition from the more useless university departments, whose graduates usually flip burgers after entering the real world. The majority choose to define racism and sexist as words that apply equally to all discrimination. English is based on common usage, not top-down defining that suits a particular group. English is not an authoritarian newspeech for people like you to shape and control.

All that babble about privilege of white males is said at a time when the president is black, and cries of racism are only increasing, because the accusation itself is a means of control... and it only grows more useful, the more power there is to control.

[–] Ratchapakinai 10 years ago

you're an idiot SunParakeet

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xanxei 10 years ago

just because of their gender?

Except that gender has nothing to do with it. They treat Guy the way they do because he's NEW.

Thread closed.

[–] OhNooos 10 years ago

No, I don't think it's any more sexist than any other story out there.

If you look at it, there's somewhat of an equality between the mom and the dad in taking care of the baby and all the characters hunt, so there's less role assignment. On the other hand, the dad seems to be in charge. Maybe that's sexist, but it's not overly bothersome. The story pokes fun at him because of his character role and his resistance to change, not because of his being male. Later, he is a hero as is the new "Guy" they meet. Ultimately, 'old' and 'new' work together to save the family.

*Edit* I didn't think that the males were portrayed as "useless" at all. I think you need to watch the movie again. If you are referring to Grug, his character represented "the old way" or the way that had worked in the past. That's not useless. Also, he was certainly useful to the family's survival many times later in the film. Guy, was also male, too, in case you didn't notice. Watch it again and try to see all of the characters and look for growth in Grugg. Also note his relationship to the various members of his family. He's actually a great character. He demonstrates so much strength, love, and loyalty in his family relationships.

[–] Smackdown735 10 years ago

Yes, it is but a lot of movies are like this. Generally society is open to sexism as long as it is against men.

Newest Member to Ignore list/ Idiot Hall of Fame: Boricuacherri

[–] tsith20 10 years ago

I love it when people look for reasons to be upset.
Being in a constant state of victimhood gives some people a dopamine drip.

NO, the movie is not sexist.

HOWEVER, What you perceive to be the films underlying sexist tone is actually a personal attack on you. Just you.
Better keep that Tinfoil hat on.

[–] Ricc0 10 years ago

Good reply.. i agree that the movie is not sexist at all.

[–] jerryrip54 10 years ago

The OP is exactly right. It's okay to treat men like crap in a movie because usually they don't care; they're self-confident enough to just let the jokes and the insults roll off. But try to treat a women or a minority the same way and let the complaints and accusations start!

[–] OhNooos 10 years ago

It wasn't a "men" issue. The film is about accepting change and letting go. Grug, the father, has to deal with changes in his world and in his daughter. His resistance to those changes leads to the comedy. Over time, his character evolves and he comes to term with the changes. He's hardly pathetic. He's a hero.

If the movie was making fun of men, then Guy would have been included as a character that comes off as ridiculous.

[–] ey_39 10 years ago

The film is sexist, even if you take into account only one thing: the mother character is passive and the only caretaker of the children. She is in the same category as the children, is told scary moral stories by the 'man' (the father), is easily persuaded by him, has no ideas separate from the man of the household.

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

he film is sexist, even if you take into account only one thing: the mother character is passive and the only caretaker of the children. She is in the same category as the children, is told scary moral stories by the 'man' (the father), is easily persuaded by him, has no ideas separate from the man of the household.

for a bunch of Neanderthals, the mother and grandmother and the baby picked up the learning skills of observation and application, pretty easily.

As evidenced by the fact, they mimicked the flowers so as not to get eaten.

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] OhNooos 10 years ago

The mother was the only caregiver? I guess it didn't count when Grug had to look for Eep and bring her back or when he cuddled Sandy and took her out of her crib, or when he carried Sandy on his shoulders or when he organized a food hunt or sheltered them whenever anything threatened them.

Did you ever consider that he told the stories and drew the pictures because that was his talent and that Ugga did not have separate ideas from him because it's a somewhat simple story and they had similar views? My take on this was simply that she was not a very developed character. And she did present different views a couple of times when she thought her husband was being a "big drag" and going overboard with his efforts to keep Eep a little girl within the family circle. I think she also recognized that Grug was having a hard time letting go.

[–] Nevuela 10 years ago

I guess somehow you missed 90% of the movie where it was Grug, a MAN, who treated Guy so poorly. But of course, being a man yourself, you're just going to turn a blind eye to this startling fact. And of course, you're going turn your other blind eye to the fact that Grug was the most sexist of all as he constantly asserted himself as head of the family.