Jodie Foster: Sexist

I know you've all been missing me since I've been on my world tour, but have no fear, I'll be home soon. In the meantime, chew on this....

“…Flightplan, a twisty thriller that has Foster playing the recently widowed Kyle Pratt whose daughter, Julia (Marlene Lawston), vanishes at 40,000 feet on a transatlantic flight. The crew quickly begin to suspect that Julia was never on the plane — and may not even exist….
“…Male protagonist was turned female for Foster — she believes the script works better with a female lead anyway. ‘There's a moment in the movie when Kyle doubts her sanity,'' she says. ''It's the kind of doubt I don't think any man would ever have. Women's relationship with their children is this strange symbiotic bond...they are their children.’”
-Jodie Foster discussing her role in the upcoming movie “Flightplan”
http://www.ew.com/ew/preview/movie/0,6115,1091338_1_0_,00.html


It is precisely this kind of sexist thinking, which is so pervasive these days, that make is difficult for fathers in this country to gain custody of their children. In the UK it’s even worse.

Essentially, she is saying that fathers are not capable of loving their children as much as mothers are. This is absolutely ridiculous and, as a father of four, I take offense. Just because mothers carry the child in the womb doesn’t mean that they have some sort of biological leg up that father’s lack. Fathers are just as invested in their children as mothers are, something the pro-abortion lobby would like to play down in their efforts to keep men from meddling in their so-called “reproductive rights”. The fact is it takes both a man and woman to create a child. Raising a child is not the sole domain of the mother.

If one of my children were to go missing, I would tear apart Heaven and Earth to find them. And if, God forbid, one of my children died, a part of me would die right along with them. The only thing that would keep me from dying outright would be my need to be there for my other children.

The fact that Ms. Foster’s statement went unchallenged makes me angry.

-Kiamat Dusk
Devoted father...world traveler...

Jodie Foster is teh hawt

As a proud and sane father of five, and a Fire Marshal, I concur with teh panda.

shes definitely wrong about fathers not caring for and loving their children

though it may be correct that a woman in that role will get more sympathy from the audiences.

plenty of other, better reasons to be sexist against men. Though i prefer to use the term "realistic about how so many can be jerks"

and panda is right -

Jodie is teh hawt

I think it is a beautiful and wonderful thing that you are such a dedicated father. It takes a special human being to fully embrace parenthood in this way.

However, I take issue with some of what I have quoted above. It does not sound as if Foster (hawt or not ) is suggesting that fathers are unnecessary or incapable of loving their children. She is being somewhat solipsistic in that she is speaking from the perspective of a mother--the only parenting experience she knows.



As you know, the female's biological and physiological connection extends well beyond pregnancy, childbirth, and the child's infancy (I bet you didn't get a brouchure entitled "How Continue Breastfeeding After Returning to Work" after dutifully completing your Lamaze class). While 'rasing a child is not the sole domain of the mother,' unfortunately, it is still societally reenforced as the 'way it should be.' There are stiff economic penalties to be paid by women (and men, as well) for bearing and raising children. Should a woman be left alone to bear the entire societal and economic burden, she should be allowed the freedom to make choices accordingly. Otherwise, these difficult decisions made conjointly should not be seen as 'meddling.'



With regards to this statement, I am unaware of a 'pro-abortion lobby.' I do know that there is a 'pro-choice' lobby. Is this what you mean? I am also interested in your use of quotation marks around the words 'reproductive rights'--I am left unsure of your intent here.

Didn't they already make a movie like this? The actress who was Starling in Hannibal was in it.

You are thinking of Julianne Moore in The Forgotten. And yes the two movies seem to have similar plots. I'll see this one, and I liked The Forgotten as well. Probably different outcomes in the two movies though. The "who done it" part.

And personally, I will always think of Boogie Nights when I think of Julianne Moore.

I chose not to resond on the men having a say in reproductive rights of mothers comment - we had a thread a coupel months ago , started by Kiamat , on this issue.

He made his opinions very clear. So did the rest of us. And a "new" debate on abortion as it relates to mother's vs father's rights would not be new at all.

What's wrong with being sexy?

oops

The Panic Room

Forrest Whittaker--hawt

most hollywood "thrillers" have plot holes big enough to fly jet airliners through, which appears to be the goal of this movie

I believe Jodie Foster would find it much easier to play a female protagonist.

I suspect that she would have a much easier time playing with one too.

.

I don't think it's particularly sexist. Children generally develop a deep emotional bond with their primary caregiver. In most cases (given our deep-set institutional chauvenism and tired neo-Victorian dogma) that is the mother. In cases where the father gets equally involved in child-rearing (as opposed to doing next to jack and then claiming that he was equally involved), the child is more likely to have strong and healthy emotional ties to both parents.

But if you happen to believe in psychic phenomenon, who do you think has a better chance of forming an intangible bond - the guy who donates half the genetic material, or the woman who carries you around in her abdomen for nine months?

If you don't believe in psychic phenomenon, then the statement still isn't sexist so much as pseudo-mystical claptrap.

Move along, nothing to see here.

It's not psuedo-mystical claptrap, and it's not psychic phenomenon. It's the sexual politics that many women subscribe to, regarding fathers and their children.

As a father who raised a child alone after that child was largely rejected by its mother, I can attest to the fact that women and society - in general - have some issues with single fathers parenting kids. And that the sexual and parental bigotry of women exists, although it's often fairly different from the sexual and parental bigotry of men. After speaking with many single fathers, in groups and individually, I can attest that the great majority of us are aware of it, and that it can affect our relations with women, socially and in the workplace. Usually, it's not very serious; sometimes it is.

Although Kiamat likely read too much into Foster's statement, I recognize Foster's sentiment because I've heard it many times in relation to my own situation and those of other single fathers. I distinguish between the wilful bigotry of those who intend to hurt, and the bigotry of those who have never considered what they are talking about from another point of view. Foster's sentiment falls in the latter category, as do the attitudes of most women who share the idea that somehow a father's connection to his child is "less" than a mother's.

And where does this stereotype come from? I applaud your parenting and concern, Seth, but there are far more fathers abandoning their parental responsibilities than mothers. It's not right to judge anyone based on generalizations. But we also need to understand and even empathize with where these generalizations come from. A lot of people who look down on single fathers do so because they were abandoned by or have issues with their own fathers.

Whether you call it sexual politics or not, a mother spends nine more months with a child than a father does.

Period.

She spends the first three weeks bent over the john and the next 8 months terrified that some small thing she did before she knew she was pregnant will either kill her baby pre-maturely or cause her to give birth to a monster.

She feels the babys first turn and first kick. (And all subsequent turns and kicks)

One day her body is her own and the next day it's being shared with some strange and remarkable creature.

Her menstruation stops.

Her body expands.

Her feet and legs swell.

Her back aches.

She constantly has indigestion.

Cravings.

Gas.

Nightmares.

The hormones are a bitch (and so is she when they kick in, even she knows it).

And there isn't a single morning that she dosen't wake up worried that some small thing could change the outcome of the creature with whom she shares her body.

Nine months later, they strip her naked, put her legs in stirrups, shave her who-who, spread her legs for the whole world to see and after an obligatory 16 hours of pushing and panting, through all the shit and blood, an entity weighing between 6 and 9 pounds comes tearing out of her body like something from the movie alien.

How could anyone go thorough all of this and still love their baby so much they would die for it without SOME kind of connection?

How could any man think that because he held her hand or rubbed her stomach through the whole experience, that they would have the same connection?

I'm not saying that the father, once the baby is born, is by nature of being male a less responsible parent. I'm just pointing out that the mother has a completely different perspective.

Yeah, but the father has to endure the pain of an orgasm, ejaculation, and a nap!

GEEEEEZ!

I can't speak with authority. I've never had a child. And I've been on the wrong end of gender politics often enough to distrust anybody who claims that something is "natural" for one gender and "unnatural" for the other.

But I can't help but wonder... if you carry a developing embryo in your body for nine months, connected to your bloodstream and growing and developing from nutrients drawn from your body... I can't say if that creates any sort of measurable bond after birth, but I can understand the absolute certainty of many mothers that it does.

Is that bond greater than that of a father that cares for his children in a nurturing and loving way? From a rational perspective, I doubt it. But I can also feel the source of that belief and I can't shake an irrational unease that the rational conclusion (that men and women are equally capable of forming a bond with their children) is somehow not a complete picture.

It may be too hard-wired into my social conditioning for me to consider the matter impartially.

I personally know of 5 men who stepped up to the single parenthood plate when their children's mothers lost track of their maternal instinct and give men their due respect in this regard. To say there is usually a bond unique to a mother and her child takes nothing away from from the father. I think of it like the bond my coworker describes between his twins. It's just different and to say so doesn't minimize the bond between siblings.

Observations of a Daddy's girl.

Perhaps this man can settle this debate once and for all?

Mr. Lee Mingwei

I think I saw him at the beach drinking a six pack.

That might explain how he got in the family way, wearing that skimpy bikini and all.

Stretch marks will put an end to that.

And yet you just did.

I have never abandoned any child. Most fathers I know have never abandoned their children and would never consider doing so. Even when they are divorced, most men I know have fought tooth and nail to retain a positive role in their children's lives.

The generalizations proceed from a minority who behave badly and have no connection with their children. I am the sole parent of one child, and the primary care-giver for another child who was abandoned by a female relative of mine. I do not generalize by saying that women don't feel an obiligation to take responsibility for their children, although by my own experience, I might make that claim. I know that mothers who are like that are in the minority. As are fathers. Generalizing from the behavior of a minority is a benign form of bigotry.