Five Reasons Love Actually is Actually Horribly Sexist

Love Actually is generally considered a classic British Christmas film. As a nation, it seems to be a widely held belief that Richard Curtis can do no wrong, hence his festive offering to cinema is all over television every Christmas. Personally, it was never one of my favourite holiday films, although I could never pinpoint why. Recently I read a Jezebel article entitled ‘I rewatched Love Actually And Am Here To Ruin It for All of You’, in which Lindy West points out what, in her opinion, are the film’s many flaws. It’s not the best article I’ve ever read, but while I didn’t agree with all of West’s points, it did make me stop and realise that Love Actually is, actually, a horribly sexist film. Beyond the various plot inaccuracies and other minutiae that West focuses on, the women in the film are treated terribly and it is rife with misogynistic attitudes.

1. It’s a man’s world

This film is about straight, white, powerful men chasing and winning attractive women. Nearly every single male character holds an important, distinguished job: prime minister of the United Kingdom, managing director of a design agency, rock star, writer, videographer, the list goes on. While the female characters all assume stereotypically feminine roles: mother, housekeeper, secretary, member of the prime minister’s staff (What does Natalia even do? Her role is so unimportant, it doesn’t even seem to have a name, plus she loses the job for being too sexy and distracting soon anyway.) Immediately, we are shown that men are the powerful ones, assertive and in charge of things, while the women do their less important women things, like look after children and bring the tea and biscuits.

2. None of the women talk

All of the women who are considered conventionally attractive in the film barely speak. This is where West really got it right in her article, stating: ‘The less a woman talks, the more loveable she is.’ Colin Firth’s love interest? Doesn’t even speak the same language as him. He falls ‘in love’ with her only when she strips off (totally unnecessarily – he’s allowed to remain fully clothed when he jumps in after her) to dive into the pond in order to save his important manuscript. Again, this emphasises how important Firth’s character’s role as a writer is – women must disrobe and dive into scummy pondwater to save his serious, influential work. Then there is Thomas Sangster’s character, the sad child whose mum has just died. His love interest is only shown on screen once, at the end, and barely says a word. All she does is smile and sing. There is no communication between these men and the women they claim to love. We don’t learn about any of them as people, the only defining quality we are made aware of is their beauty.

3. Women, especially, do not talk to each other

Not only are these women not speaking to the men chasing after them, they’re not even talking to each other. Few of them even know one other. One of the film’s central devices is the way every character is connected to each other through some kind of elaborate show of the six degrees of separation. However, everyone knows a male character. No one is connected to another character through a female character, apart from Liam Neeson and Emma Thompson but we’ll get to her in a minute. It seems these women have no friends or lives to speak of beyond the men who fancy them. Women are shown speaking to each other maybe a handful of times, and it’s about men when they do. This film is miles away from passing the Bechdel test.

4. When the women do talk/act, they are punished

The only rounded woman character with a lot of lines is Emma Thompson. She is shown as the sad, nagging housewife and punished for her agency when her husband goes about buying jewellery for his young, attractive secretary. Then there’s Laura Linney’s character, who is caught up in a bizarre ‘no one likes someone with mentally ill relatives’ plot-line that is for another blog post entirely. Socially ostracised and busy ensuring her brother is okay, she will never be able to find happiness with Karl, her office love, whom she has never spoken to. When she does finally get the guts to pursue him, she ultimately fails and goes back to being sad. Once again, Richard Curtis shows us that women with agency do not end up happy.

5. Whereas men can do literally anything and still win a woman

Meanwhile, the men in the film are off doing creepy, inappropriate things that overstep socially accepted boundaries, like filming an entire wedding video of only close-ups of Keira Knightley’s face, and still being praised for it. This only furthers the concept of men doing strange things that are not okay and basically constitute stalking, (see also Lloyd Dobbler in Say Anything, outside your window with that boombox), and this being misconstrued as ‘romantic’. Whatever men do, however bizarre, they still end up with their love interest in the end. Liam Neeson’s character only has to bump into supermodel Claudia Schiffer in a school corridor before it is implied they are now ‘in love’. A mere five weeks after the death of his darling wife. Real nice.

This is not to say you cannot ever watch Love Actually again. Personally, I attempted to rewatch it this Christmas and turned it off after ten minutes in disgust. But that’s just me. So many things are problematic. If we restricted the things we enjoyed to solely non-problematic things, we would all probably end up sitting around twiddling our thumbs a lot because there would be nothing to watch or read or do. You can watch problematic films and still enjoy them, you just have to acknowledge that they’re problematic and not make excuses for them. There’s no excuse for Richard Curtis creating a film where there are no well-rounded women characters with a comparable amount of lines to their male counterparts. Does this suck? Yes. Does it mean you can’t ever watch this film again? Probably not. That part’s totally up to you.

Rachel Knott


Is Éowyn a Feminist hero? The Fantasy genre and its “Medieval” sexism

I am a bit of a Fantasy nerd. I only do one third of the nerd trifecta (Warhammer, World of Warcraft and Magic cards) by having a fairly substantial Warhammer High Elves army. Anything set in a Fantasy realm will do – I quite often become so fully absorbed when playing Skyrim that the sight of Draugr genuinely terrifies me. I have seen Lord of the Rings (extended edition, obviously) enough that I can quote large chunks. And Game of Thrones this year became one of my favourite TV shows. I just really like dragons, I guess.

But I have a fairly major problem with the Fantasy genre. It always uses a kind of warped Medieval period as it’s backdrop, and seems to always use this as an excuse for sexism.

“Oh its fine!” People will say, “Women were treated like that in Medieval times!”

In my opinion, however, this is NOT an excuse.

One of the main offenders is Warhammer. These are miniature models that one collects, paints and fights other people’s armies with. (Known as ‘Plastic Crack’ by my boyfriend in testament to the hobby’s extremely addictive nature.) Now, I prefer to imagine that my High Elves are so ‘high’, such a higher being, that they have done away with the concept of gender altogether; but actually, when looking at the models as a whole, it becomes clear that the number of female models is tiny. (In Warhammer 40K, the sci-fi set version of the hobby, there is a whole army of women, called the Sisters of Battle. But the point I am about to make stands for them, too). When there are female models, 90% of the time they are not clad in armour, as in their male counterparts (and surely all that makes sense for a war) but scantily-clad, often with large breasts on show.

Take these Witch Elves from the Dark Elf army:

Surely that level of clothing cannot be practical?!

Or maybe these Wardancers, part of the Wood Elf army…

Nope, they’re not very practically dressed either…

How about this Tomb Banshee of the Vampire Counts army. Surely a Banshee can’t be sexy?!

That waist is quite something… Looks like the makers of this model really were trying to objectify a Banshee. A BANSHEE, FOR GODDNESS SAKES.

The problem isn’t only with Warhammer. The women of Skyrim, a role-playing video game, also suffer from extreme-inappropriate-clothing-syndrome. This is an example of a man and woman from the Forsworn race. Granted, these people do believe in the less-is-more philosophy of clothing. But how does that little clothing on the female Forsworn make sense?! This is supposed to be armour!

Surely the makers of Warhammer and Skyrim cannot expect us to believe that in medieval times women were quite so exposed? No. This is evidence of the objectification of women persisting in the modern world and seeping into the fantasy worlds that the modern world has created.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are many things that Skyrim gets right. In the handbook that comes with the game there is an N.B. at the beginning which states that whether you play as a male or female character doesn’t matter, as the way that you learn skills is not affected by gender. This is perhaps an obvious statement, (as it would be absurd, not to mention outrageous, if gender did make a difference) but one that I feel needs to be made in the context of the sexism of the Fantasy genre.

Game of Thrones has been a subject much discussed on our UEA Feminism Facebook group. There are immediate issues with Game of Thrones. In Season 1, Episode 1, we see a woman being sold by her brother to a man who, later in the episode, rapes her. It took a lot for me to overlook the treatment of women in Game of Thrones so that I could continue watching the story. Certainly, there are some strong female characters, such as Catelyn Stark, Cersei Lannister, and Tyrion Lannister’s mistress, Shae. But still, I believe that the treatment of women in Game of Thrones is pretty shocking, and it, like all the other problems with the fantasy genre we have seen so far is excused and explained away by citing it as in keeping with the medieval treatment of women.

Daenerys Targaryen, the woman we see sold and raped in the first episode

Lord of the Rings is the final nerdy thing I will discuss, honestly. And it’s my favourite, as it includes Éowyn. Éowyn is a daughter of Rohan, niece of King Theoden, who, at the end of The Return of the King, does this:

She kills the Witch King, King of the Nagzûl, the servant of the dark Lord Sauron. Which is freaking BADASS.

Éowyn is surely the strongest female character Tolkien wrote. In a culture run by men, which values prowess with the sword, she recognised that she could never be considered equal to her male counterparts until she proved herself in battle. And my god, does she do that.  And she doesn’t do it half-naked, either.

There is a problem here, however. Éowyn must act as a man in order to become respected. All the everyday, more feminine aspects of her character (the way she cared for her uncle in The Two Towers, for example) are not enough for her to be respected by her people. Ideally, Éowyn would be respected for acting in her normal way, right?

Well of course. But the key word there is ‘ideally’. The Lord of the Rings is the product of a man who wrote it in the 1950s. The problematic aspect of Éowyn’s transformation into hero is surely symptomatic of these facts, rather than the fictional patriarchy of Rohan.

So, is Éowyn a Feminist hero? Decide for yourself. She is one of my personal heroes, at least.

The problematic aspects of the Fantasy genre cannot be explained away by using the middle-ages type era they are invariably set in as an excuse. The problem with there being few female characters in Warhammer armies, or that Forsworn women wear hardly any clothes, and that Éowyn’s nurturing side is not enough to gain her respect, are all indicative of a problem of today rather than medieval times. (Aside from anything else, fantasy worlds are clearly not set in the real medieval times. So why have real medieval views of women?!) The culture that invented these fantasy worlds is at fault, not the fantasy worlds themselves. It is testament to the fact that women still aren’t respected and treated equally to men. They are objectified daily, mistreated, raped, and these sad realities have permeated fantasy worlds.

Jocelyn Anderson-Wood

UEA Feminism Treasurer