Introduction Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among many people to oppose the social manifestations of sexism and male-chauvinism, as such that result in the humanization of women. Nevertheless, as practice indicates, not too many people are thoroughly aware of all the discursive aspects of what the above-mentioned notions stand for. In this respect, watching the 1954 film Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock should come in as a great asset for them, because (contrary’s to the director’s will) it does expose the metaphysical ground, out of which men’s sexist attitudes towards women actually derive. In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while referring to some of the film’s scenes, as such that subtly promote the essentially sexist idea that, when compared to men, women appear to be differently ‘brain-wired’, which in turn implies their cognitive/perceptual ‘otherness’ – if not an outright inferiority. Body of the paper The fact that Rear Window clearly tends to stereotype women in terms of a ‘nuisance’, becomes quite obvious in the film’s initial scene, where the main character (Jeff) talks on the phone with his employer, while mentioning that one of the reasons why will not consider marrying a woman, is that this would force him to spend too much time with a ‘nagging wife’ (00.06.24). The very manner of how Jeff came up with this statement leaves only a few doubts that he sincerely believed that one of the main ‘functions’ of wives, is to bug their husbands. However, even though Jeff’s assumption, in this respect, appears rather unsubstantiated, during the course of the fifties, it remained the integral part of what was then the predominant socio-cultural discourse in America. As the film’s plot continues to unravel, viewers get to be exposed to more and more scenes that appear to confirm the validity of the male-chauvinistic idea that the socially disadvantaged status of women is thoroughly ‘natural’. The discursive legitimacy of this suggestion can be well illustrated, in regards to the scene, in which the character of Jeff’s maid Stella expounds on the sheer appropriateness of a ‘loveless’ marriage, as such that sooner or later is predetermined to end up in the romantic reconciliation of the involved parties: “Some of the world’s happiest marriages have started ‘under the gun’, as you might say” (00.11.45). Having been expressed by an older (and presumably wiser) woman, this idea correlates perfectly well with men’s unconscious anxiety to impose their dominance upon women – even if the latter exhibit the signs of resistance. Nevertheless, in light of what is about follow in the film, the earlier mentioned emanations of the cinematographic sexism can be well deemed rather ‘innocent’. The reason for this is that many of the film’s consequential scenes seem to be fully consistent with the philosophy of one the 20 th century’s most notorious sexists – Otto Weininger. For example, according to Weininger: “The male lives consciously, the female lives unconsciously… The woman receives her consciousness from the man” (61). The suggestion that this idea may not be altogether deprived of a rationale is supported by the film’s scene, in which Lisa (Jeff’s fiancée) elaborates on how s