What Do You Think About Nicole Kidman Saying Hollywood Contributes Towards Violence Against Women?

Question

WASHINGTON — Nicole Kidman conceded Wednesday that Hollywood has probably contributed to violence against women by portraying them as weak sex objects.

Kidman testified before a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that is considering legislation to address violence against women overseas through humanitarian relief efforts and grants to local organizations working on the problem.

"I can't be responsible for all of Hollywood but I can certainly be responsible for my own career," she said.

Kidman appeared before the committee in her role as a goodwill ambassador for the U.N. Development Fund for Women, known as UNIFEM, to promote the International Violence Against Women Act.

"In the real world, the laws go unenforced and impunity is the norm," she said.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/nicole-kidman-hollywood-c_n_329709.html

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The real problem is in how the feminists have been trying to redefine the term "violence" as applied to women. If you're shot or stabbed or beaten to a bloody pulp, then yeah - that's violence. But when the militant feminists put a little push or slap on the same level and scream about it being "violence" then that's ridiculous.

The feminists are all in favor of women getting into things like roller derby or kick-boxing or other sports where they'll get all bumped and scratched and bruised. But if she gets a few bumps and bruises at the hands of her husband -- and even if it was totally consensual! -- then they raise a huge fuss and holler about it, try to throw the guy in prison for years, etc. Worst of all, they've been pushing the "Duluth Model" as compulsory for male "offenders" -- and that defines the problem in terms of the man's dominant role in the family. So in order for the poor guy to pass the course and get out of jail, he has to submit to the feminist man-bashing and pretend to agree with it.

But male dominance is not the problem; anger management is the problem. In fact, couples who are in agreement as to the man's dominant role can experience far less strife and arguments and escalating violence, just because it's clear who has the final word. (Check out the Taken In Hand website, for great insights into male-dominant marriages.)

What does Hollywood have to do with it? Not much, I would say. Indeed, Hollywood has for decades been leading the charge in feminist indoctrination and attempts to emasculate men and "empower" women. Decades ago we could all enjoy scenes of strong men ravishing swooning ladies, like that scene in Gone With The Wind, where Rhett carries Scarlett upstairs to have his way with her, and she loves it. Or scenes where a man would deal with a difficult woman by throwing her over his knee and giving her a good paddling.

But all such tasty scenes of male domination over women are sadly gone from movies today, thanks to the shrill and hysterical ranting of feminists, who simply can't bear to think that other women might actually be thrilled by dominant men. Instead of fragile women cowering and begging protection from strong, manly, swashbuckling heroes, Hollywood has been giving us an endless and nauseating stream of amazon fighting chick flicks, where we're supposed to believe that a petite woman can beat up a man twice her size. Yeah, suuure. They even messed up such classics as the Arthurian legends by turning Guinevere from a shy, delicate lady into a fierce "warrior" type fighting alongside King Arthur. UGH!!! Gag me.

Hollywood is greatly to blame for the ongoing emasculation of men and the denigration of manhood. To blame Hollywood for violence against women seems absurd. I don't recall seeing a single movie in the last twenty years that appeared to be glorifying male violence against any woman. Instead, they've been glorifying female violence against men.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

thanks

Answer 2

I can't figure out why people are so influenced by ACTORS.

What were they before they became famous? Average ordinary people like the ones you see in a grocery store. They were probably bussing tables and taking peoples' orders. But once they starred in a few movies, they suddenly become the beacon of all knowledge and wisdom?

From what I recall, she starred in a few movies where she was walking around in the buff and even showed full frontal nudity. So who is she to complain about making women sex objects?

Answer 3

Why don't she give all the money back she made in the past as being a sex object, and quit her profession. Until Hollywood change their practice(s). Then ask other actresses to do the same. This is what gets me. We are having problems in this country with the roles of the sexes, families staying intact, among other things, but yet want to dictate to other countries on what they should do and should not do. Do american women ever consider that maybe they are the ones mixed up and wrong.

Answer 4

She um like totally blew the chance to complain abut like all the violins against men in the movies like totally um yanno? me and my frien was like totally shocked at all the violens we see in movies about me we think its much more important that men not be showed as hurting each other even if they can fight back and womens cant.

Source(s):

Good for her. It's about time someone said something.

Answer 5

I think it's a ridiculous thing to say.

I also am on the fence about this I-VAWA. I see where they're going. I think it's great that they want to help women and girls. But at the same time....what about the violence aimed at men and boys? Why do we care more about the plight of suffering females than suffering males? Why are they more worthy of help and consideration? It makes me feel rather sad for all the men out there who are in dire situations. They need help too but they aren't getting it because they aren't the right gender.

Answer 6

I think Hollywood glorifies violence against everyone. It's just that when it portrays violence against women, there is usually a sexual angle to it which makes it all the more interesting to people.

Answer 7

And she has never been in a movie where she portrayed a sex object? I can think of some. Kind of hypocritical to slam the industry that's made you very wealthy.

Answer 8

She just wants to get publicity and if she was offered a great role where it happened, for the right amount of money, she would keep her mouth shut

Answer 9

Way to speak out after you have already cashed the checks from the industry you are criticizing.

Answer 10

Actors are not well known for their intellect.

Answer 11

Yet half of the audiences for these films are women.

Answer 12

I would say she has become a crazy feminist.

Answer 13

I am going to stick to the issue. She is right.

Answer 14

She's right. Thanks for posting this. My respect for her has doubled.

Answer 15

what laws go unenforced? not in my experience.

Answer 16

It's funny how after you have millions of dollars and fame, and do a movie like the Stepford wives taking millions for that movie, people would actually listen to this airhead.

It's almost becoming hard to find a movie were the guy isn't the bubbling moron and it's even more common to see a woman punching out the big loser.

She's made her career off her tall slim & beautiful looks because she's no incredible actress. Additionally, I'm sure marrying Tom Cruise helped a bit.

I wonder if they had popcorn at the hearing. Is there a woman spokeperson alive that isn't a complete hypocrite or is this the norm?


Our guys are being blown up and shot to pieces every week of in the mid-east. Men are far more likely to be murdered right here in our own inner cities. The male prison population is sky high.

Poor women, it's so hard being a sex object.

Answer 17

Honestly, the way it's written, it seems like someone (probably one of the aforementioned committees) actually confronted her with the accusation, since it says she "conceded." Doesn't at all seem like something she brought up, or was 'speaking out' about. Not sure I would consider this an indictment on her part so much as an indictment by whomever *actually* said it.

edit: oh, you just ignored that part. It was a Republican. What a shocker.

That said, I think it's the individuals' responsibility to determine what they do. To blame Hollywood for some asshole beating on his wife just because he's seen it in a movie? That's absurd. If we had to censor art *just in case* people did what they saw in it, we'd never make ANYTHING realistic. It'd all just be lollipops and candy canes. This is like those people who want to blame GTA for Columbine.