Here's the thing, off the bat. You can debate whether gender norms/how the sexes stereotypically behave is innate or learned but I dunno if you can debate that people's lazy embodiment of this sort of thing isn't disappointing and often boring. Basically, the lead-up to this movie was that it's level of success would dictate whether or not a Hollywood already pathetically bereft of any ideas or foresight would gamble and take a loss on other by-women for-women films. Judd Apatow and Paul Feig, from "Freaks and Geeks" and about 5 or 6 meh ("Funny People") to amazing ("Forgetting Sarah Marshall", "Knocked Up", "Superbad") Apatow comedies since 2005 were behind it, it featured no less than three Saturday Night Live writers/comedians in the cast, the blond from "Reno 911", etc, etc. So it's Tuesday. The receipts are in and so are the blog pieces debating whether it succeeded or not. Jezebel predictably called it a success while others weren't so gung-ho and personally invested in what could be viewed as a very efficient version of one of the worst types of movies Hollywood produces. What does this mean, though? The bias from both sides of the debate are obvious but as someone who kind of hates when identity politics/standpoint trumps actual progression and quality, I kind of demand the same thing from women as I do men. I like meeting people who are PEOPLE and not gendered cliches of day-time Yoplait ads and post-Metallica dickheads with UFC hats. Am I alone on thinking people should be more than their sex or is this just how shit is? And would it be better for female movie-makers to tiptoe into Hollywood like this or to be more uncompromising? Why can't everything be like "Mean Girls"?