On the subject of why other actresses would be better for the role than
Demi Moore, Sean Johnston wrote:
> Weaver's in a class by herself
> because, while more thin than muscular, she carries a certain weight
> because of her height (about six feet even, I think) and she has a way,
> with her eyes and, indeed, her whole face, of adding to her imposingness (I
> know that's not a word) by affecting a certain expression. Her pronounced
> bone structure helps, too, and Hamilton and Bassett have similar bone
> structure (pronounced, very strong jawlines, very noticeable cheekbones,
> potentially hard eyes).
Does that mean that you must have "tough eyes" and "strong jawlines" to
do a "man's job"? Because otherwise she's too sexy?
I've heard that in Albania, there was a tradition of "Albanian Virgin".
It allowed a woman to drink, smoke, gamble, and do anything men do, on
one condition -- she'd have to give up sex, for good. Which shows
that traditional fear of female strength has nothing to do with
motherhood, idealization of female "delicate nature", or anything else
but simply sex. Most of men did not want someone they can be
sexually involved be stronger (or smarter) than them. The same reason why
some men can "understand" a strong woman easier if she's a lesbian
("Yeah, now I see why she's so aggressive!"), or if she's old and "ugly"
(all the jokes about Janet Reno). Because since men don't
have to restrain their sexuality for social acceptance (no one would call
a guy a slut, whatever he does), they do not develop mechanisms of
protection against a partner who can take advantage of them. And if a
woman is as strong and intelligent, they cannot even use the power of
physical or economical superiority to protect themselves. Result can be
something like the story in the movie "The Last Seduction".
Besides, is there some scale to determine "eye toughness" (as a means of
determination whether one is fit to be in SEAL, or to be cast for a tough
role)?
About the large breasts, I wonder if the size of penis and testicles in
any way intervenes with being a good soldier? I mean, you cannot even
support the stuff with a bra or something. Does that "interfere with
swimming" (or running, or fighting)? And what if one gets kicked below
waist during the battle? There is no way to knock out a female that easy.
A good punch in the breast would hurt a lot, but I never saw a woman
rolling on the ground because of that. So, the question is, whose body is
more vulnerable (and therefore less suited for battle)? And would tough
eyes and strong jawlines be a whole lot of help?
Besides, I've read that even riding a bicycle for too long can make a man
impotent (according to some research). Maybe some day there will be a
discussion whether some professions are not suited for men because they
can "affect their reproductive abilities" (remember the number one excuse
for banning women in 19th century from everywhere outside home?).
I personally hope that would never happen. Sexism should dissappear
without turning the other way around. But judging one's strength on eye
expression is a little unserious, I think.
> I'd be interested in hearing whether the movie has any
> >persuasive effect on anti-feminists.
I'm afraid the answer is no. They either ignore it, or perceive it in
their own way. Like, "Xena - the Cleavage of the Gods" (an expression I
heard last week). With G.I.Jane, it would be something like, "Have you
seen those boobs, man? Under the wet T-shirt? I would not mind to get
shot, man, I swear, just to get a hot chick like that drag me from the
battlefield!" Sorry, there are too many frat guys in my school to bevieve
that people like that could change. Besides, they don't really have to.
They can believe whatever they want, the catch is to keep these people from
defining government policies.
Marina
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
happens to be selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:39 PDT