Ignored or sexualized: How Hollywood is failing women

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    Dec. 4, 2017 7:17 p.m.

    Our Jewish relatives, co-workers and neighbors despair of the shame that all Jewish Americans are forced to bear. The simple fact is that our entire Entertainment, News, Information (print, video and radio) Publishing and Banking Institutions who bankroll all those loud, crude and venal industries......are Jewish. That is not anti-semitism. That is fact, as explained to us from our Jewish friends. They have a valid complaint. From the very beginning of our Nation, our cultural values and expressions have been in the hands of only one, profit motivated, exceedingly small minority. To our despair.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    Dec. 2, 2017 9:33 p.m.

    Let's review.
    Name an organization that denies women full equality with men, and will shame, pressure and marginalize women if they demand the same status as men in all respects?

  • Finn11 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 30, 2017 5:26 a.m.

    @ Cactus Pete

    Karen R./FJSL here.

    Your reply doesn't answer my question. Interesting that you would you challenge someone with it when you're not prepared to answer it yourself.

    @ idablu

    So if females just dressed modestly, the guys dominating Hollywood and cranking out fare for their most profitable audience - young males - wouldn't sexualize women. If females just dressed modestly, guys wouldn't get the message that acting on their sexual whims is a perq of their position of power; an expression of power to which they're entitled.

    Women didn't develop these messages. These all arose out of male-dominated systems. And yet the laser focus has always been on the female's behavior. Another perq of power: You get to decide who pays the price.

    But this is changing now. And not because women have decided to adopt X's definition of modest attire. It's changing because women have achieved sufficient power to force males to play fair and be accountable for their own behavior.

  • Susan Quinton Draper, UT
    Nov. 27, 2017 12:04 p.m.

    I’ve worked in Hollywood for years and years. Suddenly, this year it’s safe to talk about harassment and abuse? Why? What changed? The powerful men are still in power in LA and DC, women are still objects to be used, and families and laws are still broken. I’m not sure what the catalyst was, or even if this will change anything in 2018 and beyond....

  • John Brown 1000 Laketown, UT
    Nov. 27, 2017 11:36 a.m.

    The solution is to create an alternative to Hollywood. And at the same time infiltrate Hollywood with artists who care about these things.

    There's a huge demand for stories that feature strong women.

    There's a huge demand for stories that don't sexualize.

    I'm hoping BYUtv will help fill some of that demand as an alternative. With Studio C and now Extinct, it seems they're moving that way. But there are other production companies out there.

    In the meantime, the only thing that speaks to Hollywood is money. So if you object, don't go. Don't do things like Vidangel that only purchase the stuff you object to.

  • idablu Idaho Falls, ID
    Nov. 27, 2017 10:23 a.m.

    While I agree with some of the points of the article, I object to the author’s objection that women are sometimes portrayed in motherly, or child rearing roles, and not placed in lesbian roles often enough. Coming from a DN writer I am appalled, if not sad.

    @Karen R et al—
    NO ONE commenting here absolves men of sexual misbehavior or harassment toward women. But the sad truth is there are predators out there, irrespective of political parties. And there are perverts who view a scantily clad woman as consenting to letting them have their way with her. Yes it is wrong but these types are out there and are often dressed in sheep’s clothing. Why wouldn’t you want to protect yourself or your daughters by any means possible from these type of predators, even if it meant behaving and dressing modestly?

  • polinate73 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 27, 2017 9:35 a.m.


    You should have provided the real, "rational" answer: Because it works.

    It's amazing that we have people who have the time, money, and inclination to bean-count all of this nonsense. As long as there are well-paid bean-counters, they will find whatever reason they can to always be dissatisfied by the results.

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    Nov. 27, 2017 6:42 a.m.

    The tenor of Hollywood's product is a direct reflection of those in charge. Scripts reflect their values, desires and wants. Nothing more. And while Hollywood is not a perfect reflection of the current attitudes in the US, it isn't far off, which is why we have the President we do. Also the lack of discipline in Congress, the previous President that was impeached and the Democratic candidate we had last election.

    If change is to happen, people have to reject the Hollywood product and stop spending money on it, and on the products advertised to support it. It won't happen, instead it will get worse.

  • Cactus Pete Centerville, UT
    Nov. 27, 2017 5:44 a.m.

    FJSL - Houston, TX

    The voters knew exactly who and what Donald Trump when they elected him President in 2016. They just could stomach Hillary Clinton. Her melt down on election night proved that Trump was the better of the two choices the voters were given.

  • dski HERRIMAN, UT
    Nov. 25, 2017 6:59 a.m.

    Hollywood only exists because of money. Hollywood rarely produce any product that makes a positive contribution to society. But, it does a good job in promoting moral decline in society. Until we stop paying to watch what they produce, Hollywood will continue to do what they think. Money can change how someone thinks. I gave up spending my money on movie theaters a decade ago because I do not want my few dollars to end up with those I do not agree with. It is high time that we put our money where our mouth is. As long as we say Hollywood fails us but continue to spend our money on watching their products, Hollywood will continue to push the envelope.

  • benjjamin Provo, UT
    Nov. 24, 2017 2:38 p.m.

    The article gets so close.
    Why are some so slow to say that repeated exposure to sexualized imagery is addictive, damaging to the brain, and a contributing factor to things like sexual perversions and sexual crimes, including rape? Instead, they are quick to say things like, "it's unfair to say that showing scantily clad females in movies causes men to assault women," and thus minimizing the impact "scantily clad" females (or males) truly have on the brains of others their advertising attracts, especially with repeated, long-term exposure, which almost all of us are subject to. It's trickery. "Cause" is an interesting word to use. Instead of digging into the actual impact of sexualized imagery, they just ignore it and are quick to brush its true impact aside. I wonder why.
    I guarantee you that one thing all (or nearly all) sexual crime has in common is pornography. Does that mean that everyone who uses pornography has or will commit a sexual crime? No. Not according to man's law (each one already has according to God's law). But it certainly does lead each user nearer the line, with many crossing over. Disliking or fearing the truth, they brush it aside, fueling the evil instead.

  • wishiwaswrong Sandy, UT
    Nov. 24, 2017 2:09 p.m.

    This PC nonsense looks good on paper, but when it meets up with reality... Not so much. Hollywood and Madison Avenue have one and only one goal . Sell their product. And they know what works and what doesn't. Simple as that. If overweight ethnic women covered head to toe including a veil accomplished this, they would employ them exclusively. Like it or not, the tastes and likes of the majority of the general public are reflected, through extensive research, perfectly.

  • FJSL Houston, TX
    Nov. 24, 2017 12:12 p.m.

    @ Cactus Pete

    Karen R. here.

    "Selective condemnation is so unattractive."

    I agree, although I probably would've evoked the notion of integrity rather than attractiveness. I like to have firm ground beneath me when I stake a position, and things get pretty shaky when you start excusing behavior based on political affiliation.

    But more than just a personal preference for sound arguments, it just so happens that I've always experienced a visceral disgust for anyone who abuses a position of power or influence. It strikes me as one of the lowest things a human can do. I feel this disgust especially strongly when the abuse is sexual in nature and the target is a minor.

    So what about you? Are you as appalled by Trump and Moore as you are by Clinton? If not, why not? None of them has admitted* to the accusations of non-consensual transgressions, so it would be "unattractive" to condemn Clinton, but let the other two off the hook, right?

    * If you don't count as admissions openly bragging about this behavior on tape and on radio programs.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2017 10:52 a.m.

    A visiting Chinese scholar once asked me why sex was used to sell everything in America from automobiles to pizzas. It was difficult to provide a rational answer.

  • Cactus Pete Centerville, UT
    Nov. 24, 2017 5:47 a.m.

    @Karen R. - Houston, TX

    Where was your moral indignation when Juanita Broaddrick said she resisted him the entire time he was raping her? Selective condemnation is so unattractive.

  • FJSL Houston, TX
    Nov. 22, 2017 5:47 p.m.

    @ UtahBlueDevil

    Karen R. here.

    "None of it justifies any bad treatment by anyone, for any reason. But..."

    But what? Does it or doesn't it? Because if it doesn't, then the "but" shouldn't follow, right? The guy should be held accountable for his choices just as the woman should be held accountable for hers?

    Except that this hasn't been the rules of the game. Ever. It has been rigged in the guys' favor because boys were seen as more important or because "boys will be boys." We just can't expect decent behavior from them when their hormones are riled.

    Baloney. And as these stories are demonstrating, it isn't the women that are doing the riling so much as it is the power. And the certainty that they won't be held accountable. Perqs of being the ones running the show!

    Well, times are a-changing and for the better. No more buts or perqs. No more of gals carrying the guys' share of the responsibility.

    "None of it justifies any bad treatment by anyone, for any reason." Period, full stop.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 22, 2017 3:57 p.m.

    Karen.... I don't think 'modesty' is as hard to define as you make it. I have spent a lot of years living and working in Europe, and even there it is easy to tell the difference between personal style and lack of modesty. It's not really all that hard to "judge" the intent and message being sent. Telling the difference between a fitness competition, and we wet t-shirt competition, not hard.

    How we present ourselves tells others what we want them to know about us. Sometimes it's that one doesn't care what others think. Sometimes its that the person needs approval from others. Sometimes its someone is for a something, sometimes its that they are against something.

    None of it justifies any bad treatment by anyone, for any reason. But when my good friend in New Orleans wears a t-shirt that says "Homeaux".... you reasonably can make judgements about what he values. I don't think Elizabeth did something that told her abductor she was a willing participant. On the other hand, there are other times where the intent is just not that hard to infer. Not just for women, but for men as well.

  • FJSL Houston, TX
    Nov. 22, 2017 3:28 p.m.

    @ Flying Finn

    Karen R. here.

    "...women who think they can run around half naked..."

    If this represented the majority of cases, you'd have a leg to stand on. But they don't and this has been amply demonstrated in the news reports, so it's curious that it's this kind of example that you and Rifleman remain fixated on.

    A better example: O'Reilly and Ailes, Halperin and Savino, etc. and etc. These men harassed women in the workplace. Shall we blame women for going to work? Shouldn't they know better that predators are everywhere?

    Or maybe, just maybe, we should adopt a higher standard of behavior for guys - a standard that meets the one we have for women - and enforce it like we do for women by ensuring that consequences follow for failing to meet them. Because the fact is that women that get assaulted after exhibiting the kind of behavior you want to focus on DON'T get a lot of sympathy. And they certainly can't expect to gain a job or position of high repute once exposed, can they? But men can. And do.

    Let's hold men accountable the same way we do women.

  • Flying Finn Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 2:45 p.m.

    Karen R. - Houston, TX

    It never ceases to amaze me when I hear women who think they can run around half naked, go to some strange man's house to drink and party and then wonder why they were sexually assaulted.

    Liberals think that it is someone else's responsible to protect their highly valued virture.

    Conservatives think that running around half naked and going to some man's house to drink and party is just a really stupid idea.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 22, 2017 2:07 p.m.

    @ Rifleman

    "Nothing absolves a man from all responsibility for his behavior. However the predator who is out hunting couldn't care less about his "responsibility" to guard your virtue."

    Your second sentence contradicts your first. And a male isn't responsible for anyone's virtue but his own. Think about it for a second: Would we even be having this conversation if the Trump's and Weinstein's of this world had been guarding their own virtue?

  • Flying Finn Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 1:55 p.m.

    Prometheus Platypus - Orem, UT

    Knowing that there are men among us that wouldn't hesitate to sexually molest a child do mother's take precautions to insure their safety? Likewise some women have blessed with the God given sense to know they need to take some responsibility for their own safety.

    Only a fool would place her safety in the hands of a man she just met at a bar.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 1:05 p.m.

    Karen R. - Houston, TX

    Nothing absolves a man from all responsibility for his behavior. However the predator who is out hunting couldn't care less about his "responsibility" to guard your virtue.

    If a man asks an intelligent woman with even the smallest brain to come over to his house late at night for some drinks does she say "sure, just as long as you will repect me when I'm passed out on your couch"?

    Smart women don't go looking for trouble Karen and then wonder why they found it.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 1:02 p.m.

    So using the logic presented by Rifleman, public beaches and swimming pools are nothing but dens of temptation, loaded with lose women, flaunting their sexuality?

    Not being able to see women as another human, is the problem certain folks face.
    Women need to be careful how the dress, speak, move, do there make-up, because they are objects of sexual desire, more than they are another human being.

    The problem is men who take no responsibility for their hormones or their actions, and find it easier to blame the victim. Seems so biblical to blame women for what is obviously male problems of control.

    Comparing men to wild bears waiting to attack, is hilarious, horrible analogy, but funny that some folks believe that men are predators by nature, and women are victims by design?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 22, 2017 12:39 p.m.

    @ Cactus Pete

    "A woman doesn't have to ask who defines modest dress. 2 seconds if front of a mirror tells the woman, and the rest of the world, whether she is modest."

    What's considered "modest" in Centerville, UT would be considered quite immodest in Orthodox Jew neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Heck, I've overhead two fundamentalist Baptists arguing over whether a certain length of skirt is modest or immodest. (To me the answer was, "Both!")

    What is usually agreed upon, though, is that the burden of appearing "modest" is primarily born by the females. Again, the implicit message is that somehow females are responsible for how men behave. It's really so demeaning to males. I can't believe we've allowed it to go on for this long. You guys really are capable of so much more!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 22, 2017 12:21 p.m.

    @ Rifleman

    "...it is beyond hypocritical to suggest that when a cheap woman flaunts her assests she has no idea of the message she is sending."

    Uh-huh. What part of this "cheap, flaunting" woman's message absolves the guy of all responsibility for his behavior? Men are a lot more capable of controlling themselves than you give them credit for. Why such a low standard?

    It's also this low standard that's behind the idea that only females who are "asking for it" get harassed/assaulted. I just don't believe that men are this weak and the vast majority of them prove this true every day. So where have you gotten the message that they aren't responsible for their own choices?

  • Flying Finn Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 11:10 a.m.

    Re: Prometheus Platypus - Orem, UT

    Not all male sexual predators are locked up in prison, and not all sexual predators have committed crimes that would get them sent to prison.

    When coming upon a bear in the forest do I run up and kick it or do I use some common sense and avoid contact with it? Geeeze, let me ponder that question for a minute.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 10:37 a.m.

    @Prometheus Platypus - Orem, UT

    Decent women are really a lot smarter than you give them credit for. They dress and act the part. Men can tell almost instantly which women are decent and have moral values and which ones don't. Sadly there are wolves among us. Always have been and alway will be. They are attacted to the women who advertise.

    Don't want your purse stolen? Don't leave it in an unlocked car in the Rio Grande area. It is against the law but the folks down there don't care. They are looking for the opportunity and will take it when it presents itself.

  • Cactus Pete Centerville, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 10:03 a.m.

    Prometheus Platypus - Orem, UT

    No, women don't deserve to be sexually attacked and you know that very very well. Nice try but don't put words in my mouth that aren't there.

    A woman doesn't have to ask who defines modest dress. 2 seconds if front of a mirror tells the woman, and the rest of the world, whether she is modest. In time the man who works at the local landfill looses his sense of smell, and sadly there comes a time when some women lose their sense of self respect.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 9:43 a.m.

    Well Karen, it didn't take long for Rifleman and Cactus Pete to prove your point, did it?

    Women who are sexually attacked deserved it, they were encouraging primitive ape men by the way they dressed, or walked or spoke, or maybe because a woman who smokes is easy, heard that one too. Always seems to be on the woman though when a conservative is talking.

    Sexual assault never happens when women have to cover their ankles, or wear burkas, right?

    Hollywood doesn't cause women to be objectified anymore than religion has done for a millennium.

  • Cactus Pete Centerville, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 9:03 a.m.

    @Rifleman - Salt Lake City, UT
    You are correct. Classy women know what is modest and what is immodest. Some women attract decent men that respect decent women, and some women attract men you couldn't trust for a second.

    Women are a lot smarter than Karen R. suggests.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 8:13 a.m.

    Karen R. - Houston, TX

    Sorry Karen but it is beyond hypocritical to suggest that when a cheap woman flaunts her assests she has no idea of the message she is sending. She knows exactly what she is doing.

    Decent women dress decently and attract decent men. Cheap women dress and act cheaply and then are surprised when they attract cheap men?

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 7:25 a.m.

    Art imitates life, Hollywood or local film makers sell what people want to see, not the other way around.

    And please, sexualizing women is as old as the first chapters of the Bible, and continue throughout the holy script. Hollywood would have a difficult time getting anything but an R rating on most biblical tales. How many women are mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon?

    You want wholesome movies, make them, but don't complain or whine about not being able to edit them or control there creativity.

    Vote with your dollars, the American way, right?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 22, 2017 6:10 a.m.

    @ UtahBlueDevil

    "The messages need to be consistent. If you demand respect, and you should, you need to show you respect yourself as well."

    I have mixed feelings about modesty standards. Who gets to define them? Traditionally it has been men and with the message of, "Women need to cover themselves so we can control ourselves." An abdication of personal responsibility, if you ask me.

    So I think this is where the consistency needs to be. We need to stop making females accountable for a male's reaction to them. Guys need to know that they will pay a price if they kiss, grope, or fondle another without her/his consent, no matter the attire of the other. Consent is the key.

    And they need to know that they'll pay a price if they sexualize a work-related context or sexualize any situation because they're in a position of power. They need to know they'll receive the same degree of public scorn and rejection that only SOME experience today. So it won't be, "I believe those women because their abuser is a Dem or a candidate I don't like." It'll apply to all and in every situation.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 6:06 a.m.

    Hollywood is a fantasy land run by powerful men who only have contempt for basic moral values. Interestingly enough, women of cinema actually had more power in the golden age of cinema (1920’s and 1930’s) when many female stars attained top billing... Irene Dunne, Katherine Hepburn, Constance Bennet, Mary Pickford, Janet Gaynor, Barbara Stanwyck, Norma Shearer and many more .. stars who has power and the character to fight back against the powerful all male studio bosses... Olivia DeHavilland essentially broke their system with her lawsuit against Warner Brothers... setting the stage for what should be a continuing revolution for women in Hollywood and yet somehow we are right back where we started and probably worse...

  • Flying Finn Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2017 5:58 a.m.

    Women don't buy from Victoria Secret in an effort to go unnoticed. I love it when a woman gives ther green light and later decides that she should have given a red light ....... and suddenly it becomes the man's fault.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Nov. 22, 2017 5:49 a.m.

    Should Hollywood be criticized for debasing the popular culture? Oh, it does share some blame, but sexual objectification did not start nor will it end with the movie business.

    A bigger question that fades into oblivion is the debasement of societal ethics and morality by big business in general. When did it become okay to run from debt? Or to pollute without care? Or to openly lie about a product or service? To manipulate markets through fraud and deceit?

    We all know that corporate America is guilty of most of this. Yet these heinous acts are ignored while we twitter only endlessly about the problems that Franken or Weinstein have with grabby hands and libidinous misbehavior.

    Be righteously indignate about Hollywood, but expand that outrage to the even larger cultural influences that extend to the grocery aisle and the corner gas station.

  • Spalding55 Placentia, CA
    Nov. 21, 2017 8:15 p.m.

    The article is absolutely true. One added point to their argument is the issue of age for female actors. Many female actors have commented about the difficulty of getting parts after they are beyond what is considered their physical prime. In fact, Hollywood often hires younger women to play the parts of middle aged and elderly women.

    One reality though, is to criticize Hollywood is to criticize society in general. Hollywood is a money driven medium. They won’t make what society won’t buy. Unfortunately sex, violence and questionable conduct sells; otherwise we wouldn’t have 3 “Fifty Shades of”, 5 “Rambos”, and 3 “The Hangover” movies.

  • hbeckett Colfax, CA
    Nov. 21, 2017 5:54 p.m.

    what about the wonderful movies of time gone past that had little children and animals portrayed in roles of genuine life and loving life as it really is they were very good and involved good character reprensation and real to me so maybe I am just an old codger from the 40's and 50's

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Nov. 21, 2017 4:38 p.m.

    So we should blame Judge Moore's pedaphilia, and Senator Franken's grabby hands on Hollywood?

    Such things did not happen before movies?

    Oh, puhleeeeeze.

  • Johnny Triumph Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 2:43 p.m.

    The media/entertainment industry never seems to learn, and that's because the general public buys it. I'm afraid that we're not serious about equality in much of anything. It's a shame, women deserve better and so do men, for that matter.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 1:58 p.m.

    And yet...we devote a special edition of Time Magazine to Hugh Heffner and California wants to designate the Playboy Mansion as a historical site. The irony is rich indeed!

  • Surf is Up Miami, FL
    Nov. 21, 2017 1:51 p.m.

    When it comes to objectifying women, sexuality, morality and the second amendment-- Hollywierd is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. At least what is right.

    I don't go to the movies anymore.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 21, 2017 1:17 p.m.

    While I agree totally that men need to up their game, there is not debating that, we as a society need to up our game as well. Watched some of the AMA awards last week, and the majority of women who performed didn't do much themselves to de-objectify themselves. If you are a talented performer, you should need to have on a dress with a knack line that meets the belt line.

    The messages need to be consistent. If you demand respect, and you should, you need to show you respect yourself as well. I am not saying any of these accusers did anything to have diminished themselves.... that is not the point I am making. But what I am saying is if we are to have an honest dialog about the sexualization of women, we need to fix all the problems.

    We need to teach our daughters to respect themselves enough to not exploit themselves. And we need to teach our young men that no matter what the other person does, your morals should stand firm regardless.

  • IAlaw Council Bluffs, IA
    Nov. 21, 2017 12:40 p.m.

    I totally agree with the part about sexualizing female characters; it's out of control, and it's totally wrong. But as to the comments about LGBTQ+, I have to ask, is it the position of this article's author (and/or DN) that we need movies portraying more lesbian characters, and such in homosexual relationships? If so, that's crossing the line.

    We should acknowledge that there are those who struggle with SSA, and we should bear their burdens with them, as Church leaders have urged. But that's very different than embracing homosexuality itself or accepting it as a normal and healthy lifestyle. Unless I've misunderstood the message of this article, I'm seriously astounded. I never would have imagined I would see the Deseret News publish an article suggesting the need for media that glorifies homosexuality. Does the LDS Church still own the Deseret News?

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 11:57 a.m.

    This problem and the arguments and "discussions" it produces have been going on for ages.

    I remember well the many protests in the 60's against the magazine "Playboy" and others like it for their "objectification" of women as little more than sex objects to be ogled at, at least. There were also many who disparaged the protesters as little more than puritanical namby-pambies who lacked the "sophistication" to appreciate the "artistic" value of the female form and/or were merely trying to hold women back from expressing their power through their own sexuality. Thus came the free-love/sex of the 70's, the crassly raw sexuality of the hip-hop rappers, the proliferation of pornography in videos and on the Web, the relentless degradation of moral standards on radio & TV (Maurey Povitch, Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, etc.), and on and on.

    Now, as these lowered morals have produced the increasing onslaught of the long predicted results, people seem baffled by the ubiquity of it all. "How could it have gone on for so long by so many?", we ask.

    My answer, if you're old enough to remember the warnings of 20, 40, 50 years ago, put it in that context and you'll know how we got here.

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    Nov. 21, 2017 11:49 a.m.

    Great article. And Hollywood isn't the only place that women are ignored or sexualized. It is rampant in sports too. Look at the uniforms worn by female volleyball players as compared to male volleyball players. Same thing with cross country and track. Our society won't even let women be athletes without sexualizing them. Sad.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2017 11:49 a.m.

    Let's not forget Hollywood's casting couch. No aspiring actress was ever forced to employ it in order to climb the latter of success. The word "cesspool" comes to mind.