To respond to several questions in the current thread:
Barbara: Thanks for your explanation . . . (although I really was just
playing Devil's Advocate in mine; this is something I like to do, so
please don't take it too personally -- it's all in the spirit of
intellectual debate). No, I haven't seen the movie yet -- tonight we're
going to go see "Boogie Nights" instead, which should be equally
interesting (LOL!) -- but I read a fascinating review by someone who said
that the problem with the film is that in fact it doesn't have the courage
of the book's fascist convictions, that the book focussed on the brutality
of the military training rather than showing it as a co-ed summer camp,
and that by doing so it made disturbing but undismissable points about the
efficacy of certain kinds of cruelty. Certainly the book (which I haven't
read myself, although I intend to) bothered people within the field enough
to produce several noteworthy responses, including Haldeman's "The Forever
War" and Card's "Ender's Game." The point of this review, and I'm sorry
that I've forgotten where it appeared, was that by toning *down* its
material, the film has obviated the possibility for that kind of
continuing dialog; it's content to gross people out without making them
think.
Stephen: Yes, Matthew Fox *was* kicked out of the Catholic Church (he's
now an Episcopal priest), probably because he's pro-feminist, pro-gay,
anti-hierarchy, and a number of other things that don't sit too well with
Rome. As for dress and feminism: yes, it *is* an issue, and no, it
shouldn't be. I still can't walk out my front door in skimpy clothing
without taking my life in my hands, although, as another poster commented,
men can; but one of the goals of my feminism, at least, is to try to
create a world where I *can* if I want to. This brings me to your
question, "Is dress responsible for seeing women as objects." My answer
is no, the *beholder* is responsible for his or her interpretation of what
someone is wearing. The problem is that in this culture, we've been
trained to believe that certain kinds of clothing make reliable statements
about the moral fiber of the person underneath them. I consider that
assumption profoundly suspect. I'm the same person whether I'm wearing
body armor or a g-string, and I hope to live to see a world where other
people recognize that fact.
Which brings me to Vonda: yes, you're right, the Leia action figure is
static . . . so the question becomes, what situation do we imagine her in
when we see her in that outfit? When I see that outfit I remember her
strangling the blobby guy, but somebody else might remember her pulling
helplessly against the collar she wears earlier in the film, and someone
who hadn't even seen the film might conjure up all kinds of pornographic
scenarios, based on the assumption that women who wear skimpy outfits are
automatically sex objects. I suspect that still pornographic images
(rather than written porn or films) function largely as Rorschach tests:
you and Catherine MacKinnon and I will look at the same picture and invent
three completely different narratives to frame it. Have you read Russ'
wonderful essay on "Pornography and the Doubleness of Sex for Women"? She
says that sex is inescapably double, both positive and negative, for every
woman in this culture, and that depending on where your experiences fall
along that spectrum at any one time, you'll respond to the same images in
very different ways. Now, whenever I see a static sexual image of a
woman, I try to imagine a variety of narratives for it: ones in which
she's powerful, enjoying herself, making a living and putting her kids
through school, etc., and ones in which she's feeling lousy, being
exploited, and so forth. Maybe this, maybe that: no way to know without
talking to the model, and as for the imaginary character the model is
supposed to represent, you can write any story for her you choose.
So let's write stories in which women are powerful and smart whatever
they're wearing, shall we? Subvert, subvert! ;)
Cheers,
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:09 PDT