Bond. Jane Bond

The remake of Ghostbusters with four women in the lead roles gave rise to a backlash because of its politically correct casting, which was then exacerbated when it was hooked to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “woman card” candidacy.

To the surprise of Sony, Ms. DeGeneres announced on May 17 that her talk show had booked Mrs. Clinton — a friend, political ally and repeated past guest — to appear Wednesday on an episode for which she had already scheduled the “Ghostbusters” stars Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon….

But the not-quite-joint appearance came as less-than-welcome news to Sony, whose marketing team has been fighting to tamp down what it sees as a misogynistic, Internet-based assault on the movie. The first trailer for the new film, released in early March, became the most disliked trailer in YouTube history after a coordinated campaign by a group of mostly male naysayers.

Sony wants its movie to make money. If it can trade off the current trend of gender politics, great. After all, why else would they cast four women? But that doesn’t mean they believe in the political statement being imposed upon its movie, or that they want the movie to be inextricably connected to the candidacy of a woman for president.

“Get your Woman Cards ready,” Ms. DeGeneres wrote on Twitter to her 60 million followers, a reference to the Republican contender Donald J. Trump’s criticism that Mrs. Clinton had relied on playing “the woman’s card.” The show’s website added, “This Wednesday, Ellen’s sitting down with some powerful women!”

The last thing Sony needs is someone at the door checking people for their “woman cards.” When X Files star Gillian Anderson twitted about the possibility of her taking on the role of the best known British spy ever, a suave, debonair, womanizing, tough guy, a good question was posed:

Anderson is a great actress, and would make an exceptional movie spy. But why Bond? One might wonder whether Ian Fleming gets a say, but he’s a dead white guy, so he wouldn’t be allowed to own his character anyway.

On Broadway, the play Hamilton included casting without regard to race, which conflicted with history, to make the point that we should move beyond the prejudice of race in such decisions and instead focus on talent.  The play is overwhelmingly popular because, I’m told, it’s a great play. I haven’t seen it so I can’t say. And this is true either because of, or despite, racially blind casting. But even so, that hasn’t insulated the play from harsh racial criticism.

At the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf engaged a 22-year-old white guy about why he (and his Asian wife) backed the Trump.

For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion.  Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it’s just instant shunning.

Of course, the “ultra-PC” side complains of the same problem, though they also demand that the polite discussion be dictated entirely by the exclusive use of their words, ideas and sensibilities, or you’re a racist or misogynist with whom no discussion can be had because you’re wrong.

The lesson here, which is one that seems to be obvious to everyone except the media, progressives and academics, is the harder they try to create their Utopia, the more people flee to Trump. It’s not that people think Trump has sound ideas, but that he doesn’t have PC ideas. So they keep screaming louder, as if the deaf public will finally hear what they’re saying and realize they own truth and justice. And with each increasing decibel, Trump’s numbers go up. “People are so stupid,” they mutter, as they shake their heads and craft more demands to end microaggressions.

Yet, the experiment went on long before the deeply passionate selected gender and deviant sexual studies as their major at Oberlin. It was happening in a place that never interested them, but happening nonetheless.

But as its 20th season gets underway, the W.N.B.A.’s modest attendance and television viewership (just below 200,000 on ESPN’s networks last season) illuminate a stubborn imbalance between men’s and women’s professional leagues, adding to the expanding debate about the place of women’s sports in society.

These anxieties have increased more than 40 years after the federal law known as Title IX opened the way for millions of girls to play sports. The women’s professional leagues they move on to are still struggling to develop and hold lasting public interest.

In contrast, women’s soccer has enjoyed wide appeal, though they’re paid less for reasons that elude serious discussion.

You can argue equality all you want (though it would be far more utilitarian to do so using real words than the meaningless jargon of intersectionality), but you can’t make people buy tickets to things they don’t want to see. You can legislate 31 flavors invading New York, but you can’t make anyone care.

Will Gillian Anderson make a great Jane Bond? Probably, but she would also make a great female secret agent no matter what the character is called. But by trying to force a woman into a role made for a man, you’re not achieving the gender hegemony you believe with all your sad heart you deserve. And if you think calling people names is going to win them over, you watch too much Ellen.

20 thoughts on “Bond. Jane Bond

    1. SHG Post author

      It can be hard to tell who’s behind the costumes. They can do amazing things with special effects these days. You never know.

  1. Sabine

    Apparently in today’s world even a woman can be a womanizer. Oh wait, that’s not really PC is it?

    1. SHG Post author

      I bet Jane’s sexual preference remains a mystery until the release of the trailer. But then again, what are the chances that the producer would miss the opportunity to make Bond the first intersectional agent?

  2. John Rew

    The elephant in the room has well and truly embraced fat acceptance to the point that it is now impossible to ignore. Men and women are different. Races are different. People don’t want equality they just don’t want to be treated like sheep. There is an increasing realisation that the social justice police will create a tyrannical bureaucracy that will far outweigh anything that has manifest from religion or capitalism. The truth is that not being able to accept the sexes and races as they are makes social justice warriors the real sexists and racists. BTW the reason female soccer players are not paid as much as male soccer players was demonstrated recently when the the woman’s soccer team ranked 5th in the world had there arses handed to them by an under 15 boys soccer team 7-0 in a demo match. Take a look at the footage it’s not pretty. Perhaps the boys were all misogynists.

    1. SHG Post author

      Races are different? Yes, they have physical indicia that they’re not like us so that we can distinguish other races and know who isn’t “one of our kind.” Beyond that, no. All racial groups have smart and stupid, tall and short, hard-working and lazy, beautiful and ugly.

    2. Jason K.

      If I recall correctly, the men’s soccer league brings in 50x the revenue as the women’s soccer league. That is the reason the men’s league gets paid more.

      1. SHG Post author

        People who leave comments conveniently based on “if I recall correctly,” and then state something not only completely inaccurate, but monumentally wrong, are the sort of blithering idiots whose comments are unappreciated. If you feel compelled to comment, you could google the actual numbers so as not to write something so absurdly wrong, but regardless of whether you’re too lazy, stupid or dishonest, you didn’t.

        U.S. Soccer says the men produced nearly double the revenue of the women over a four-year cycle. But a look at U.S. Soccer’s financial report shows the gap between the U.S. men and women is much closer when you look at the four years from 2014 to ’17.

        Sports Illustrated.

        Any asshole could have looked it up. It takes a special asshole to say it’s 50 times when it’s at most double. And your similarly moronic comment expressing your similarly baseless racist assumption got trashed, as will any further comment you try to leave here.

  3. wilbur

    I love watching the LPGA. Lydia Ko is my favorite athlete. Give me women’s softball, soccer, volleyball, track … I enjoy it.

    Women’s basketball is utterly unwatchable. ESPN must think of it as their own version of pro bono, or insurance against criticism of gender bias.

    1. SHG Post author

      Well this is great. Now, I no longer have to wonder what women’s sport Wilbur enjoys. I can sleep tonight.

  4. Ruben Plooster

    “If it can trade off the current trend of gender politics, great.”

    It’s a little more difficult to trade off gender politics if you’re actually creating something. For as much as they deem themselves the vast majority, most of these moral authorities don’t actually consume the products they criticize.

    Many a producer has made the mistake in thinking that this is a great untapped market only to see their product fail. Especially these new progressives with their disdain for capitalism.

    1. SHG Post author

      The proof is always in the pudding. It’s their money, and they can take the chance of chasing a trend if they want. And when it’s gone, and they lose their bet, it’s gone. That’s the glory of capitalism.

Comments are closed.