Feminists quivering with rage over Scott Pilgrim's supposed misogyny

Boo-farking-hoo. It's not like the titular character beats his girlfriend. A movie does not need to appeal to any demographic — if you don't like it, don't watch it. Maybe I should be up in arms because the hero is totally fiscally irresponsible — he's off glavanting around with his girlfriend instead of minding the Banana Shack (there is always money in the banana shack).

I'm so sick of Micheal Cera.

Did not see the movie yet. I read the comic books last year though (not volume 6 yet). Very good. I did not see anything misogynistic in the story. But of course, I'm a man.

That being said, I know a couple women that read the books too. They all loved it. I think the movie might be very badly marketed because that should appeal to women too.

So...yeah...I do not get the misogynistic accusations.

At least he made dinner. Wouldn't misogyny consist of telling her to make if herself? Or calling her a "bad woman" if she refused?

Okay, I haven't seen it yet. But putting a woman on a pedastal and feeding her bread is not misogyny. At worst, it's chauvinistic.

"Okay, I haven't seen it yet. But putting a woman on a pedastal and feeding her bread is not misogyny. At worst, it's chauvinistic. " — actually, it's performance art.

Having actually seen the movie multiple times, I will say that this movie is far from misogynistic. So, so far.

First of all, Scott Pilgrim is poor. Not homeless poor, but "starving artist" poor, and they make a point out of this in both the book in the movie. Feeding her bread (and eating it himself, I might add) is nitpicking, especially since it's probably all he could make. It's straight from the books too, so calling the director misogynistic is fucking stupid. And complaining that he should make something other than bread sounds a lot like projection, rather than a complaint. Don't call a movie entirely sexist because if it were you, you wouldn't stand for just garlic bread.

And he does progress beyond mooney-eyed infatuation. Clearly, someone didn't watch the end of the film. I mean, the entire end fight sequence is about him fighting for /himself and not Flowers/.

As for the "Twilight for boys" comment, that's more sexist than anything else here. This movie isn't sexual eye candy like Twilight is, so claiming that it's a film aimed to please a male audience (and only a male audience) is bullshit.

Simpler answer: the marketing for this movie blows. No amount of money spent can substitute for the fact that nobody has told audiences why they should see the movie.

I liked the movie and found nothing misogynist about it. In fact, it had a lot of strong female characters. What exactly is misogynist about it? Garlic bread? Really?

I wasn't offended. Michael Cera could never come off as misogynistic. It's a really good movie.

I'm a girl, and I loved it. As did my two friends who saw it with me, also girls. We thought it was super cute, plus, who doesn't love fun, comic-ey fight scenes!?

ZEP R PORN VIDEOS JCF XXX TUBE W EID RKDCQL|ZVJ QMWXWMA R PI TW

Misogyny is so ingrained into our culture that it has become invisible.
Some Reasons Why This Film is Misogynist:
1. the premise of fighting seven evil exes to 'win' (like in a video game) the girl implies that a woman is somehow the property of her lovers (predominantly men), is a prize to be gained through competition with other males, and not a self-determining person with her own agency. This premise is hardly anything new, despite the comic book/video game graphics: it harkens back to the old idea that women are objects of male ownership whose lives are defined by their relations with men.
2. All the women are jealous of each other--there is no female camaraderie except at the end between Knives and Ramona, and that is brief and mediated by their shared love of Scott.
3. The betrayal of lesbianism as an unfavorable oddity: Ramona defensively declares "it was just a phase!" of her same-sex relationship.
4. The women can be easily controlled by the men. Scott defeats the evil lesbian by touching the back of her knee (that women have no control over their erotic feelings is a popular male fantasy that pornography makes extensive use of), and Ramona is controlled by Gideon with a chip in the back of her neck.
5. The female characters are all perfectly happy to forgive the pain Scott has caused them in a matter of a few minutes, after a fight scene. Kim is won over by his two line mumbling apology, and Knives conveniently steps aside, despite (or because of?) her love for him and sends him running after the retreating Ramona. The womens' sides of the story are not given sufficient closure or emotional explanation because these characters have been, from the beginning, merely the female foils to Scott's heterosexual male (underdog) hero. They fall away as obstacles in order for the film to reach it's correct conclusion: the establishment of a heterosexual relationship, the fulfillment of male desire.
6. The women barely get to fight. And when they fight they have to fight each other. Having Ramona battle her lesbian ex rather than Scott seemed to me like an obvious enactment of male fantasy (girls fighting yeah!) and the chauvinistic notion that men aren't allowed to fight women (exemplified by Scott's line, I don't think I can hit a girl; they're soft). This implies that women and men are somehow on different levels of physical strength and agility solely based on gender. All the fighting done by women is against other women. Knives is knocked down when she fights a man, as is Ramona. Knives and Ramona spend more time on screen fighting each other than they do fighting Gideon at the end. Ramona does not even get the satisfaction of destroying her final evil ex, who had been controlling her and using her (an abusive relationship, though this emotional dimension of her character is barely explored). Instead, Scott destroys him, because he is the male hero rescuing a weakened female from the possession of another man.

This movie is also racist and homophobic in similarly innocuous but insidious ways.
The portrayal of Knives as an Asian American was also offensive: from the subtle 'oriental flute' music in the background while she was onscreen, to her overall characterization as "sweet and nice" but also "over-the-top and crazy". Not to mention all the casual racism surrounding her: from "kung pao chicken" to the skepticism and eroticization evident in Scott's friends' reactions to the news that he is dating a Chinese-American. Her race is not normalized, but frequently commented on and made into a joke, such as when Scott asks, "are you even allowed to date outside your race?" Knives is defined by her ethnicity in a deliberate and stereotypical way: the white characters are not defined by their ethnicity, because they are considered the 'default'.
The gay men portrayed were also defined by their queerness the way the straight characters were not defined by their straightness, because of course straight is the default, normal way of being, and gay is the other, deviant way of expressing sexuality. (Scott introduces his friend to knives with the words "he's gay" as a disclaimer). The gay best friend stereotype was kicked around a bit here, as was the old "haha that person is gay" joke. The gay character was constantly referring to the fact that he was gay--queerness was not normalized in the social relations depicted by the movie. When Scott walks in on his roomate and sees his partner naked, the implication is that Scott has been traumatized by his
exposure, however accidental, to other male genitals. The experience is repulsive to him because the people he sees naked at two men; he has somehow been implicated in the queerness by witnessing them together. The implication is that gay sexuality is visually abhorrent to straight men, and rightly so: this enforces an all too familiar hyper-masculine homophobia--literally, a male fear of being gay or being exposed to gay sexuality. Imagine how different the scene would have been if he had walked in on straight intercourse.
In short (which this is, though it could be much longer) it's not the garlic bread, but the underlying assumptions about masculine and feminine power, friendship, relationships, and sexuality, based on unimaginative stereotypes, which make this movie misogynist.