Pin It

The feminist blog Jezebel is angry. About Boko Haram brutally executing 2,000 Christians? No. About Ayaan Hirsi Ali having to live under a jihad against her for protesting the barbarianism of female circumcision? No. About the effect of fatherlessness on young minority women? No, of course not.

Jezebel is angry about pretty babies. Or more to the point, Hollywood’s portrayal of pretty babies.

Clint Eastwood’s ‘American Sniper’ has been burning up the box office for the past few days. Packed theaters and an Oscar nomination for lead actor Bradley Cooper have brought a lot of buzz to the film – both good and bad. Famous wealthy socialist Michael Moore vomited some thoughts on Twitter about the cowardice of snipers in service to their country and actor Seth Rogan compared the film to Nazi propaganda.

However, Jezebel takes outrage to a whole new level in their latest post – American Sniper Promotes Unrealistic Beauty Standards for Babies.

Yes, Rebel Pundit readers…someone who is alive and a human being actually took the time to write down those words and then write more words about the horrors of pretty babies in movies.

The film notoriously forewent actual child actors in favor of plastic baby dolls, presumably to avoid traumatizing real babies from the terror of being in the same room as director Clint Eastwood. A sagacious decision, but one that poised yet another dilemma: the plastic babies are milkfed and symmetrical, glowing in their perfection and delicately rosy cheeks, sweet and subdued, and will never encounter colic. The babies’ noses are flawlessly buttony, their cheeks absolutely round, their tiny lips distended in an unachievable bow. The babies’ tans are even, and a perfect shade of sunkissed white skin. Their very existence, the upholding of these babies as somehow the way all babies should look, exerts undue pressure on actual live babies to live up to this type of unachievable ideal, and ultimately sends the message to American Sniper viewersthat if their babies are not as perfect as the babies onscreen, then they are not as worthy. It says that in order to be considered beautiful, a baby must be a doll.

It’s disgusting—but unsurprising, given Hollywood’s impossible body expectations, and further augmented by Eastwood’s famously conservative viewpoint.

…We demand the depiction of normal, oxygen-breathing babies on our screens, in a show of solidarity that babies come in all shapes and sizes, all religions and nationalities…

It’s either satire or the writers at Jezebel are high. ‘American Sniper’ is the story of Chris Kyle – a white man who became the most prolific and accurate sniper in American history. Kyle also had a white wife, so naturally they produced a white baby. Was Eastwood supposed to feature a brown baby instead in the interest of “diversity?” Babies come in all shapes and sizes and nationalities….DUH! But when they are newborn and come from two white American parents on American soil they literally only come in one size (that’s newborn-size) and one race/nationality (that would be white and American). Apparently conservatives hate ugly babies…or something.

Not only is Jezebel’s complaint infantile (pun intended), it is also ignorant. Yes, Hollywood does indeed inflict an unrealistic standard of female beauty on the it’s consumers but that does not in any way extend to babies. That is a reach, to say the least. There are plenty of “ugly” babies and toddlers working in film and television these days. That’s because when it comes to child actors there are a few absolutely vital considerations to make.

The attractiveness of a child/baby actor is not really a factor. Babies cannot be directed. They cannot be put on a production schedule. They’re babies. They just do baby stuff and the rest of us react accordingly. What matters most to a director is not if you’re baby is “cute”, but if he/she is “good.” If you can’t find a calm baby, a doll is the next best thing. Additionally, a doll in place of a real baby not only costs less but helps avoid the difficulties that come with filming infants. Babies and children are only able to work for a limited amount of time each day, according to union rules. On a film set you might only be allowed to film a baby for one hour a day, tops. Adjusting lights, sound and sets might take up 45 minutes of that hour alone. Obviously a doll doesn’t need to adhere to union rules.

Also, a baby cries when it wants to and sleeps when it wants to and wakes up when it wants to. It’s insane to expect an entire film crew to stop everything (racking up hours of overtime and valuable working hours) and wait for an infant to fall asleep or cry so they can get the desired shot.

Finally, every audience member who is a human being (which I would assume is all of them) knows that babies poop and pee and generally expel disgusting secretions randomly throughout the day. Most people don’t go to the movies to see real life. They go to escape to worlds where people solve their problems in 2 hours and never worry about pimples or static cling or laundry. They want to see stories about people who accomplish things they could never dream of doing. Yes, babies poop. I changed soiled diapers for 5 years. Do I really have to pay money to watch them poop on a giant movie screen too?

American Sniper is an incredible story about the level of dedication, excellence and sacrifice it takes to represent America in the battlefield, the importance of family and how love can be the most powerful pull in the universe.

The angry harpies at Jezebel somehow – incredibly – found a way to turn it into a feminist indictment of cute babies.

4 Responses

  1. SCOTT

    You must remember you are dealing with liberals and feminists whose interest in legitimate concerns and making any kind of sense is FAR down on their priority totem poles. After all, the sooner in life any human is put into the Hollywood scene, the sooner they become left-wing, angry liberals.
    Whoopie G even got this one right by telling Seth Rogan he should appreciate the rights of others to make a movie that may contradict his sacred viewpoints. I guess liberals aren’t so liberal when folks disagree with them eh?

    Reply
  2. WCA

    OH! For the horror of it all.

    Only a crazy, imbecile like Eastwood with vile motives could depict a beautiful baby. Perhaps the DHHS could initiate a new regulation limiting exposure of beautiful babies to only an hour a day in public. It would be only fair.

    A board could be formed to determine improper societal aberrant facial characteristics which offend proper thinking people. The board could be called the Child Facial Equalization Authority.

    Looking forward perhaps with improved medical technology steps could be taken to limit the existence of freaks who make others feel bad.

    Reply
  3. Neva

    Hi everyone, it’s my first visit at this site, and post is genuinely
    fruitful in favor of me, keep up posting these articles.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.