Gloria Steinem is a movie critic now, I guess. She recently posted a screed on The Huffington Post that riffs on a complaint she overheard from a male passenger on a flight that he didn't want to watch a "chick flick" as the in-flight movie. So what is a 'chick flick,' she asks. "I think you and I could probably agree that it has more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they die." Does it really need to be pointed out that this is as much of a crude, useless stereotype as the one she's supposedly trying to swat down? She then goes on to propose that a new term, 'prick flick,' would "serve film critics well" and should be employed to describe male-oriented movies.
In case we have no idea what she means, she gives us a rundown: The list would include a) World War II movies, in which actors "conveyed heroism without ever leaving the back lot." Okay ... so if they shot on location, you'd be okay with it? Then there's b) movies that cover more recent wars. Then comes c) which is "movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women." She then breaks down this last category into further subcategories: chainsaw movies that are designed for teenage boys, serial killer and rape movies that appeal to "ordinary male adults" and movies that feature "cleverly-plotted humiliations and deaths of powerful women for the well-educated misogynist." Steinem's brainless critique then kicks into high gear as she takes the film Boxing Helena to task for being "a man's dream of amputating all a rebellious woman's limbs." I guess no one had the heart to tell her that Boxing Helena was written and directed by a woman. Enough said.