Laura,
I didn't mean at all that having a baby made Kira "weak". I just think it
would have been more subversive for her to have her own child, with or
without a co-parent (male or female) instead of having a baby for a
heterosexual couple. I agree with you completely about a woman's
reproductive system as a basis for her inherent weakness, and I think this
applies to Kira's character. Her reproductive system was directed in the
production of a child for a heterosexual male (and his wife), not in the
production of her own child. I think this links up with another thread on
the list, about reproductive technologies: Kira the revolutionary is now
Kira the surrogate womb. All I'm saying is that the way the writers
constructed her pregnancy (Kira the character, not Nana Visitor the woman),
it seems less empowering for her than it potentially could have been. The
pregnancy story, in addition to the other changes in her character's
appearance & behavior, point to a deliberate strategy to make Kira more
acceptably "feminine".
Kym
>
>However, I do have to take objection to her pregnancy being part of that
>scheme (even ignoring the fact that the actress was pregnant in real life).
>As anyone who's been through labor knows, having a baby is only further
>proof of a woman's incredible _strength_, and not weakness. Joseph
>Campbell once defined a hero as someone who willingly risks their own life
>in order to save another; he said, based on that definition ALL mothers are
>heroes. Personally, I've always found it stunning that a woman's
>reproductive system could be the basis for an argument of woman's inherent
>weakness - I mean, think about it - we bleed for FIVE DAYS every month and
>don't die! No wonder men are afraid of us! :-)
>
>Laura ("Up With Ovaries!!")
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:24 PDT