I’ve been thinking more and more about Jurassic World, which is probably a waste of time, but still… it’s one of very, very few things that has come out in recent years that more-or-less celebrates traditional gender roles, and it did catch heat for that, though less than I thought it would, and for more trivial reasons.
Mind, it does NOT demean women in any way that I can see. The female protagonist is basically in charge of and running the whole place, at one point she grabs a rifle and joins the fray, rescuing the male protagonist, and at the critical moment she saves the day, betting on her ability, in heels no less, to outrun a T-Rex (almost certainly suicidal, but hell, we left that level of suspension-of-disbelief behind at the ticket counter, and it was fun to watch). To a large degree she is unfortunately still the typical 21st-Century “all women (must) kick ass” female stereotype, except that she’s not afraid to wear a dress, which along with the heels really set off the radical feminists). While aspects of that stereotype have gotten extremely silly I have no real problem with it.
The critical way in which Jurassic World differs, and might reflect the cutting edge of a new direction, is that it does not demean the male protagonist either… despite her strength he is not portrayed as untrustworthy, evil, weak or stupid, which makes him stand out from other male depictions in pop media in a time where apparently ALL central male characters have to be untrustworthy, evil, weak, stupid or some combination of those. Every one of them. Because, apparently, not demeaning men demeans women.
In the end, the male protagonist suggests that they stick together “for survival”, and apparently there’s a tacitly understood implication that the subject might really be survival of the species.
It is.
– Robert the Wombat