I have a theory that you can spot a sexist pretty quickly when they refer to women as "females."

Beyond the word making it sound like you're describing the grooming patterns of animals, it's also usually a term followed by a sexist statement (which, come to think of it, is probably the bigger give-away).

On that note, let's have a look at a statement made from former Ghostbuster and current irrelevant actor, Ernie Hudson on the topic of the all-female Ghostbusters reboot:

I heard it was going to be a total reboot, and that it would have nothing to do with the other two movies. If it has nothing to do with the other two movies, and it's all female, then why are you calling it Ghostbusters? [..] I love females. I hope that if they go that way at least they'll be funny, and if they're not funny at least hopefully it'll be sexy ... But all-female I think would be a bad idea.


So much to unpack. Let's try to satisfy some of Ernie's questions and concerns.

Q: If it's a reboot, why keep the same name?

A: I... don't think you understand what "reboot" means. And honestly, if it were a reboot with exactly the same set-up as the original, why bother making it at all? The idea that they're taking it in a new direction also doesn't negate the busting of ghosts. Which is what the title refers to.


C: I love females, but what if they're not funny?

A: Then it would be exactly the same as any other comedy with unfunny actors, except these ones would have vaginas. And even then, it's not like unfunny movies don't make money โ€” we've had to suffer through three Hangover movies. But given the enormous volume of funny women โ€” and the fact that this is being produced by a director who made a very funny all-lady movie (Bridesmaids), I'm not sure that that's a huge concern.


C: If they're not funny, hopefully they'll be sexy.

A: Die in a fire.

Hope that helped, Ernie! And don't forget to go fuck yourself!