MovieChat Forums > To Sir, with Love (1967) Discussion > Outrageous sexism

Outrageous sexism

posted 10 years ago by svenrufus
43 replies | jump to latest

Given how progressive much of the film is, it makes me cringe to see the scene where he starts to get the class into order by talking about how they should treat each other.

"The girls should be addressed as Miss, the men by their surnames" One of the boys complains that they all know the girls names so why not use them, to which Thackeray replies "Are there any girls here who don't deserve to be called Miss" - as if this is a killer argument for the discrimination he just proposed.

I could have let that go, but then immediately he said something along the lines of "The girls need to start behaving differently because you can't be sluts for ever, and only the worst sort of men will marry you if you are" (I know I'm paraphrasing horribly, but that was the jist of it)

Sometimes social attitudes just date films too much, and I fear that's the case here. There were loads of other lesser incidents that showed that sort of attitude too.

I felt it was a good enough film on the whole, but the sexism really got me down.

[–] TwittingOnTrender 10 years ago

I don't know if it's fair to call it sexism. It was the way it was at the time, and no-one was wringing their hands saying "Oh when will these mediaeval attitudes change!" - it was simply accepted as how life was.

Scenes such as that would have been seen as morally upright - a good man trying to put young people on the straight and narrow. And don't forget, there are institutions to this day where discipline calls for titles such as Miss and Sir. Whether that is right or wrong depends on your personal viewpoint.

There have been several cultural revolutions since then and things deemed normal back then seem outlandish now. Believe me, in fifty years time (God willing) you'll be saying exactly this to the youngsters of the future about movies that today seem cutting edge and achingly right-on!

No Guru, No Method, No Teacher.

[–] morganseer 8 years ago

I don't know if it's fair to call it sexism. It was the way it was at the time, and no-one was wringing their hands saying "Oh when will these mediaeval attitudes change!" - it was simply accepted as how life was.

__________________________________________

Actually, a lot of us WERE anxious for the medieval attitudes to change. I'm guessing you're a guy?

[–] tec_4 10 years ago

What's sexist about expecting proper behavior in the schoolroom, by either gender?

[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

Erm... Did you read my post? Because the men and women were treated differently perhaps? Because girls behaviour was referred to as sluttish - ignoring the presumed involvement of the boys in said sluttishness perhaps?

Good behaviour is important - agreed. Same standards apply to that behaviour regardless of gender otherwise it's sexist. That's all.

And that's not what we saw.

I just felt that the progressive attitudes that were in may ways ahead of their times in the film were let down by those moments.

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

Although sexist, One gets the label of sluttishness for the girls whereas the boys are referred to as 'the worst possible men".

What's worse?

And I'm not that keen on anti-sexism. I believe that men and women are different - in all species and would probably benefit in having those differences treated as such.

My New Year's resolution is to simply write 2̶0̶1̶4̶ 2015 instead of 2014"
.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Adler-99 10 years ago

As an older adult, let me tell you, this is just how it was in the late 1960s. It was not considered unusual.

See? What a long way we've come! And some people say we didn't/don't need feminism. ;-)

[–] freerun250 9 years ago

svenrufus: "Erm... Did you read my post? Because the men and women were treated differently perhaps? Because girls behaviour was referred to as sluttish - ignoring the presumed involvement of the boys in said sluttishness perhaps? "

No that's not what you said. You said cause the girls were called Miss and boys by their surname.

[–] svenrufus 9 years ago

Again, if you read the first post I made on this you'll see I said more than that. The bit about the names was the first thing I commented on, and is a quote from the film - I also said that wasn't the worst of the problems I had with it.

I then went on to talk about how the girls were called sluttish, and their behaviour held up as impacting on their marriageability. The boys were held to and judge against different standards. As I've said elsewhere, where girls ad boys are treated differently in this way, it is sexist.

As I also said somewhere else, my use of the word 'Outrageous' was probably OTT, and I can't recall the details of what wound me up so much that day. I stand by the sentiment though, if not the extreme expression.

[–] nilbog44 8 years ago

aren't you a delicate little snowflake

[–] roreyking (598) 2 years ago

LOL! Thank you!

[–] laserboy28 10 years ago

It's how things were, the women's liberation movement was not even in it's infancy yet (in North America), so it can't really be called sexist given the time period. Look back at the films of the 1970's & early 1980's - want to see "politically incorrect"?! I love films of the late 60's through the early 80's, but it still surprises me what was "OK" before the political correct machine began to take hold in the mid and late 1980's. Even advertising materials (TV spots, 1-sheets etc.) were questionable. I guess my point is, films are like many piece of art, they take place during a time period when things were just different.

[–] jcarpenter-1 10 years ago

It's how things were, the women's liberation movement was not even in it's infancy yet (in North America)

Um, just plain wrong. Helen Gurley Brown wrote Sex and the Single Girl in 1962, Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963, Jacqueline Susann wrote Valley of the Dolls in 1966, Second-wave feminism began in the early 60s, and the National Organization for Women was founded in 1966... so duh, again wrong. Of course it really doesn't matter, the knuckle-walking OP rated The Wizard of Oz a 4. So much for sound judgement...

[–] Milkyway123 10 years ago

by jcarpenter-1 »

Of course it really doesn't matter, the knuckle-walking OP rated The Wizard of Oz a 4. So much for sound judgement...

Two things.

1. Since the OP is advocating equality and speaks out against the film's sexism, how can the insult against the OP be "knuckle-walking"? Doesn't make sense.

2. What has the OZ rating to do with... well... anything? You don't know what he based his rating on and thus his "sound judgement" can't be judged.
How would you like it if someone did the same to you? You rated the classic Baron Munchausen a 6 and Zoolander an 8. Why you...

[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

Ha! Thanks for leaping to my defence - I'd missed that reply.

I like to think I'm not a slack jaw knuckle dragger- one criteria I abide by to maintain that status in my own mind is the avoidance of presumptive derogatory labels employed against people I don't know online. Just sayin'...

My ratings are not intended to reflect my assessment of a films place in the pantheon of the worlds greatest films, rather they reflect a purely personal reaction to what I watch. As a result I rate some films which are 'classics' quite low. I can appreciate qualities, I can respect the film, but I don't always like it. Fwiw, I don't like Mary Poppins either, but 12 Angry Men is for me one of my absolute top picks. You cant judge me by my ratings. Oz just rubs me up the wrong way as pretty much all musicals do. Sorry, just the way it is.

[–] Milkyway123 10 years ago

My ratings are not intended to reflect my assessment of a films place in the pantheon of the worlds greatest films, rather they reflect a purely personal reaction to what I watch. As a result I rate some films which are 'classics' quite low. I can appreciate qualities, I can respect the film, but I don't always like it.

Very nicely put. I will steal these words and portray it as my own for my profile description. I hope that is ok? If it's not... well, I'm still gonna do it.



[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

No worries. I'll send details for royalties later

[–] jcarpenter-1 10 years ago

Seriously, Lost in Translation a 3 and Year One a 10?

[–] Milkyway123 10 years ago

by jcarpenter-1 » 1 day ago (Sat Feb 28 2015 13:44:09)
IMDb member since February 2004
Seriously, Lost in Translation a 3 and Year One a 10?

Thank you! Sincerely. Here you are at least asking a question of what you probably perceive as idiocy (or madness).

I can assure you that there is a reason behind the rating, it's not what you think (as you wouldn't then need to ask the question). I have explained it many times and therefor I am a bit exhausted from doing a repeat (I should really put it my profile once and for all). Let me also add, the ones that have questioned my ratings have accepted my explanation.

And yes, I am a tease! =)

[–] Milkyway123 10 years ago

Then I guess you are no fan of the accompanying tagline:
A story as fresh as the girls in their minis. . .and as tough as the kids from London's East End!?



[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

Ha ha! Brilliant! Not sure I'd have gone to see it based on that alone. :^)

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 9 years ago

Outrageous sexism?

Is this movie sexist? Yes. Made in 1967. I am old and was around in those days. Mad Men is not a parody - the world was like that in those days. The world was sexist. That is why there was a woman's movement and why feminism flourished.

Having said that though I think the term "outrageous" to be hyperbole. It's not outrageous, it's a sign of its times. Movies cannot be reinterpreted with modern sensibilities and judged wanting. It's totally unfair.

Btw if you want to see "outrageous sexism" try watching the films from the 30s (after code), the 40s and the 50s. Goes for outrageous racism too. Your head will explode.

[–] svenrufus 9 years ago

Funnily enough, since you say my use of the word 'outrageous' is hyperbolic, when I got the email notification of your reply just now, I noticed the thread that had been replied to, and thought to myself "I wish I hadn't used the word Outrageous in the title". Something must have really rattled my cage that day.

I do think it was outrageous in it's own right I guess, decontextualised, but everything you say about the times that gave rise to the film is dead right. What surprised me I think was the disjoint between those comments, and the otherwise mostly progressive tone of the film. Been a while since I saw it, and I feel considerably less outraged now. :^)

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 9 years ago

☺

[–] demetgn-1 9 years ago

I really like how you expressed it, very well said.

[–] dwellman21 9 years ago

LOL as I was watching this, I knew there would at least be one professional umbridge bringer on here kvetching about the evvvvvvil sexism of him laying down the rules of "Hey, ya'll quit acting like white trash and maybe ya'll will get somewhere in life."

It WAS applied to both genders, as the boys were told "hey, straighten yourselves up so you won't be the worst kind of man that'll just take anything he can get, which is something you ladies shouldn't be to those kind of men." It was pretty clear to me, but of course in this day and age of everyone being hyper-sensitive and overly offended by anything that *GASP* mildly critiques the female gender, that would go over some people's heads. That's the problem: lumping together and ragging on every olden tradition for traditions sake w/o understanding WHY this-or-that tradition was bad.

It went both ways; you just didn't bother paying attention because you were too busy gathering the pitchforks and torches.

And also,

"Are there any girls here who don't deserve to be called Miss"

How the HELL did you misinterpret that as a bad thing? He's asking the dude if he thinks there's any girl in there that doesn't deserve the respect of being treated like a lady and addressed as such. Now you can argue about whether or not you believe in that way of addressing women matters or whatever, but come on. You missed the entire point of that scene.

[–] hodie1 9 years ago

Thank you, dwellman21! When the boys protested about not using the girls'given names ("we know 'em") , they were basically asking why they should treat them with respect. They felt entitled to be overly familiar and the girls let them,only because they didn't know any better.

[–] marktayloruk (2504) 3 years ago

Calling someone you know by their Christian name is hardly disrespectful.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

"The girls need to start behaving differently because you can't be sluts for ever, and only the worst sort of men will marry you if you are"

He does come on unusually strong there, but I think he's also referencing the earlier scene where he used similar language, after he caught the girls burning something, that got his dander up, in the fireplace. In the book, it was a sanitary pad. Such a scene in a 2015 classroom would be unlikely to elicit the same response, but this was almost 50 years ago, so I wouldn't let the "sexism" get you down.🐭

[–] moosefeathers 9 years ago

Given how progressive much of the film is, it makes me cringe to see the scene where he starts to get the class into order by talking about how they should treat each other.

"The girls should be addressed as Miss, the men by their surnames" One of the boys complains that they all know the girls names so why not use them, to which Thackeray replies "Are there any girls here who don't deserve to be called Miss" - as if this is a killer argument for the discrimination he just proposed.

I could have let that go, but then immediately he said something along the lines of "The girls need to start behaving differently because you can't be sluts for ever, " (I know I'm paraphrasing horribly, but that was the jist of it)

Sometimes social attitudes just date films too much, and I fear that's the case here. There were loads of other lesser incidents that showed that sort of attitude too.

I felt it was a good enough film on the whole, but the sexism really got me down.

He was correct in calling the girls sluts, dirty mouthed, sluttishly ill mannered and slovenly. They were. Especially with the sanitary napkin, he made his point that even if you didn't do it and you watched, you were just as much as a slut.

He was getting a point across, as you see when he was saying what you paraphrased, the girls became self concious touching their hair and looking at their dirty clothing and through out the remainder of the film, their appearance seemed to change for the better.

Also, he was just as hard on the boys as he was the girls [and only the worst sort of men will marry you if you are] He also mentioned how dirty they boys were especially their odors and their hair.

Didn't really see sexism here.

"Are there any girls here who don't deserve to be called Miss" <--- Also evidenced that they were listening to him was when he asked this question and the girls all turned around menacingly towards Potter when Thackery posed the question. Classic LOL moment!

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...