![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWatching tv while taping can be problematic, also this irritating tendency of the tv always jumping to NY1, whenever I turn it off and on again.
Oh well, did watch Once Upon a Time and The Good Wife after the flick Captain America. (Yes, more tv than I want to admit to watching in one night. But I ate dinner during Captain America.)
Of the three, I found Captain America the least interesting and the most predictable, reminding me once again why I prefer television to movies. Oh don't get me wrong - it's an enjoyable flick, great visuals, and whoever did the art direction and cinematography clearly spent a lot of time with the 1940s comic books.
It felt like watching a comic book come to life. Also the end credits were by far the most creative of the Marvel action flicks to date - by end credits I mean, the writer, director, and actor name list at the end - where they co-opted 1940s color war posters and propaganda. The flick also did a great job of commenting on that propaganda. What a lot of non-comic book viewers don't know, no reason why you would, is that Captain America was basically Marvel's response to Superman. They tried Captain Marvel but it didn't work - DC got upset with them for being a bit too close to the Superman logo, also didn't really catch on. Captain America much like Spiderman and to a degree Batman, took an ordinary and somewhat scrawny guy that people beat up and turned him into an invulnerable and powerful superhero. It's a trope that Marvel really created - hero by science. And the alienation the hero felt was in some respects a direct commentary on the politics of the time.
But most of the flick is basically your gee-whiz hero stuff except unlike DC's Superman, Steven Rogers Captain America has a more tragic and somewhat realistic ending. He is in a sense immortal. When he wakes up from being frozen for 70 years, everyone he knew or cared for is long gone.
It's entertaining, but forgettable. A fun cotton candy flick, yet far better than most of its type. Actually it's one of the better superhero origin flicks that I've seen and manages to succeed in reconstructing the 1940s, art deco, atmosphere of WWII movies and action flicks that other films such as the Rocketeer failed miserably at. Far better than Thor, which is saying something. After the credits roll, we get an lengthy advertisement for the Avengers. Here? Thor's teaser actually worked better or was preferable. Captain America's wasn't necessary and disappointed me. I was lead to believe it was a great last five minutes.
Not so much. Sort of cheesy. So in contrast to Thor? Captain America had better art direction and was less cheesy, but it also wasn't as much fun or funny, and didn't have as good an ending. So Thor? Maybe not a better film than Captain America, technically speaking, but definitely a more entertaining one. I looked up from Captain America at one point and thought, okay how long is this movie? 2 hours? Damn, long movie. Also how many times do we have to fight Red Skull - only to have him scamper off? I love Hugo Weaving, but please.
The movie was a bit on the repetitive side. It could have been shorter, less "earnest" and
a bit more comical, took itself and its subject matter way too seriously (probably due to the setting), and pacing was off. Chris Evans however was quite good in the role and first half of the flick was by far the best.
Overall rating? B- (If you have to choose which flick to rent? Go for Thor, it's a lot more fun. And has better cameos.)
As an aside? Why is it that all the other Marvel heroes, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man get origin stories that more or less fit the original version, while the X-men don't? Will I ever get to see Scott, Jean, Beast, Angel, and the Iceman work together on the big screen?
I loved the original X-men story leading up to Dark Phoenix, with all the new team members added. But I have yet to see anyone do it, the cartoons sort of did it, but not quite. I also loved the Scott/Jean romance - but I doubt they'll ever do it either. Oh well, it's not like others haven't done it elsewhere, somewhat common trope.
On to Once Upon a Time. My only difficulty with Once is that they are making Regina hateful. I wanted to kill her by the end of the episode, which makes sense considering I was seeing her purely through Emma Swan, Henry, and Mary Margaret's Elizabeth (Snow White) pov's.
Other than that, I'm rather enjoying this show - which is very much a female empowerment piece sans the aggravating victimized little girl or the gal with guy powers. As my pal CW once stated, women are allowed to be powerful in their own right - they aren't given male powers for this to happen.
I want to address what I mean by that quickly...and I guess this works with the review of Captain America above. Today, I listened to someone talk about gender in a way that I never really thought about before. He said that women were permitted to dress like men, but men not like women. Women could wear jeans, a tie, a jacket, etc - even that old 1940's poster of the working factory gal with her sleeves rolled up and in jeans. But if a man wore a dress he would be made fun of, considered a joke. Why? Because we can understand why a woman would want to be more like a man, why she'd want to dress like him, and have his "power" and his "rights" but we can't understand why a man would want to be like a woman, to be the "weaker" sex. The very fact he might want to - upsets people, makes them very angry, and often mean. In Captain America above - there was a big deal made out of how women couldn't fight in the War, that Steve Rodgers wasn't physically strong enough. We are taught from a early age, hard-wired, to view gender in certain way. Unable to see the liminal spaces between, that we can't be defined solely by our gender or sexual orientation - that's not always that definitive.
What I love about Once Upon a Time is that power is explored in whole new way. Men don't have all the power in this series. And how power is weilded is different. Emma Swan has a traditional male role - but she is not super-strong, and she's a bit butch, true, but not definitively so. Snow White/Mary Margaret isn't easily defined either. She's not a damsel.
She's tough and smart, yet also wildly feminine. And here's the thing? She save's the Prince Charming as often as he saves her. They are equals. One gender isn't more powerful or more preferable than another. It's one of the many things that distinguishes Once from Willingham's Fables or for that matter, Greenwalt's Grimm. Once does what Pam Am promised.
In tonight's episode, we learn how Snow White met Prince Charming, who as he states, has a name. It's James in fairy tale land, and David Nolan in the real world. In the real world he's married to Kathleen - the woman that he was engaged to in the fairy tale world but broke it off with because he found Snow White. And Snow has a great line: "Romance doesn't exist, there's no love at first sight, or happily ever after. I want to escape to another realm, an isolated one, where no one can disappoint me ever again." (Be careful what you wish for.)
She's meets him by robbing him and his fiance of their jewels. He pursues her to get the jewels back, particularly his mother's ring. And ends up saving her from the Queen's guards, while she in turn saves him from the Trolls - using a bit of magic and her wits. It's a great twist on the old tale.
In the real world, Henry has talked Emma into convincing Mary M. to read to John Doe who lies in a coma. She does. He magically grabs her hand. And she makes the colossal mistake of telling someone. The Doctor calls Regina. (Does everyone work for her? She's beginning to seem unbeatable - which is important actually, a good villain must seem unbeatable and the hero must be the under-dog, otherwise you won't root for them.) The Doctor is played by David Anders - who looks a lot younger than he did on Vamp Diaries, what did he do get a botox treatment? No dummy, John Doe skaddadles to the woods and hunts for the Troll Bridge.
OR so Henry tells us. We see the story that Mary M told him in the flash-backs (that's the story I related above). Emma, Snow, the Sheriff (who is developing a serious crush on Emma and I keep wondering what fairy tale character he was in the other world...one of the Queen's henchmen? Her huntsman? I can't tell. Also wondered about the Doctor who went on a date with Snow, but had eyes for Red Riding Hood. Is he the wolf? Half the fun of this series is guessing who people were in the other world, assuming they were anyone and didn't just stumble upon Storybrook like Emma did.) go hunting for John Doe, they are joined in short order by Henry. Regina? Seriously, you need to keep a tighter leash on the kid. No wonder Emma worries about him and sticking around. The kid's what - 10? And he manages to run into the woods, at night, by himself and meet up with our gang? Who asks him how he got away from Regina? Oh, he just snuck off. Regina claimed she was going to keep Henry away from Emma - to which I thought, yeah, good luck with that. Considering to date, Emma hasn't sought out Henry, Henry has sought out Emma. Regina's biggest flaw is her arrogance and self-confidence. Also her tendency to underestimate people. Honey? Your son is bright enough to find his real mom, locate her, and bring her back with him and convince her to stay. Also if you want the birth Mom to leave do you really think they way to do it is continuously pissing her off and making it clear that your son has reason to hate you? A little honey goes a long way for both parties.
My problem with Once is Regina is a bit of a nitwit. Very powerful nitwit. But still a nitwit. I'm hoping she gets a bit more interesting as we go and a little less hateful.
I still have no idea what Snow White did to her. I can guess of course.
Of course all of the above is realistic, I mean Regina is afraid of losing Henry. She's also filled with hate for Snow and getting off on Snow's misery. I'm guessing she's the only one who remembers everything? Well, and Rumplestilskin. The two people who engineered the curse?
Again not clear. These emotions most likely cloud her judgment. And she has a history of reacting to situations, not thinking about them. Just getting furious and lashing out.
Like emotional bomb. Emma scared her. She lashes out. And Regina unlike everyone else in town has a lot to lose.
The ending interested me. It seems unhappy, but that's a mislead. David/John Doe/Prince Charming's wife pops up, he has no memory of her - and feels more connected to the women who saved him in the forest. Kathleen Nolan mentions they argued, he left, she never hunted him down, and now she's found him - but he doesn't appear to know her. Regina has Henry, but she doesn't. She went after Henry, adopted him in the hopes of filling the void left by her father who loved her unconditionally and who she killed to enact the curse. But Henry doesn't love her. If anything, he despises her and sees her as evil. She has a person in her life who wants her dead. So what she thinks she has is less real than a fairy tale.
Meanwhile Emma and Mary, who appear on the surface to have no one...end up at the end having each other. The episode in a way is their journey to each other. At the beginning Mary finds Emma sleeping in her car, and offers her a place to stay. Emma shrugs her off, stating she's fine. Henry comes to Emma and gives Emma - Regina's shirt, since Emma clearly didn't bring any clothes with her and needs a change of clothes. At the end, after Regina tells both Mary/Snow and Emma that they have no one! Emma is oddly propelled by Regina's words to seek out Mary and accept her offer. Yes, I need help. And they suddenly have each other. The two women, mother and daughter in fairy tale world, have bonded in Storybrook. The ending isn't that they end up with a guy, but they end up together. Also ironically, the person that Regina is using to fill her void is the product of the love she wished to destroy. And did everything in her power, including kill her own father, to destroy.
Regina says the worst thing in the world is to have no one. No one to love you. But it is clearly a projection of her own fears, for she has no one. Everyone around her fears her, but no one, including Henry loves her. She is of all the characters - the most alone.
John Doe/Charming/David/James - (what is in a name anyhow) - isn't alone. Mary M, Emma, and Henry - his family wander into the woods and save his life. Mary M applies CPR in a strange twist on the kiss he bestowed on her in fairy tale world to wake her from a sleep induced coma. Also John Doe like Emma Swan was found unconscious on the side of a road, except he was found by Regina who saved him, making me wonder if she remembers who he is or just sensed it? The appearance of Kathleen raised more questions for Emma than it answered and made her even more suspicious of Regina. Also things change. Relationships. They aren't stagnant. Time is no longer frozen. 28 years have passed where everything stayed the same.
Now, it begins to change.
Emma and Snow gain power from each other. They save the boys, Henry and John Doe. Gender is there, but not. It's a welcome relief and a surprise. Since I didn't expect from a show produced by Disney, and the writers of Lost. It's the sort of thing I thought I'd only get from another cult writer once upon a time, but...turns out...one never knows. Best to keep an open mind.
Late. Will write about The Good Wife at another time.
Oh well, did watch Once Upon a Time and The Good Wife after the flick Captain America. (Yes, more tv than I want to admit to watching in one night. But I ate dinner during Captain America.)
Of the three, I found Captain America the least interesting and the most predictable, reminding me once again why I prefer television to movies. Oh don't get me wrong - it's an enjoyable flick, great visuals, and whoever did the art direction and cinematography clearly spent a lot of time with the 1940s comic books.
It felt like watching a comic book come to life. Also the end credits were by far the most creative of the Marvel action flicks to date - by end credits I mean, the writer, director, and actor name list at the end - where they co-opted 1940s color war posters and propaganda. The flick also did a great job of commenting on that propaganda. What a lot of non-comic book viewers don't know, no reason why you would, is that Captain America was basically Marvel's response to Superman. They tried Captain Marvel but it didn't work - DC got upset with them for being a bit too close to the Superman logo, also didn't really catch on. Captain America much like Spiderman and to a degree Batman, took an ordinary and somewhat scrawny guy that people beat up and turned him into an invulnerable and powerful superhero. It's a trope that Marvel really created - hero by science. And the alienation the hero felt was in some respects a direct commentary on the politics of the time.
But most of the flick is basically your gee-whiz hero stuff except unlike DC's Superman, Steven Rogers Captain America has a more tragic and somewhat realistic ending. He is in a sense immortal. When he wakes up from being frozen for 70 years, everyone he knew or cared for is long gone.
It's entertaining, but forgettable. A fun cotton candy flick, yet far better than most of its type. Actually it's one of the better superhero origin flicks that I've seen and manages to succeed in reconstructing the 1940s, art deco, atmosphere of WWII movies and action flicks that other films such as the Rocketeer failed miserably at. Far better than Thor, which is saying something. After the credits roll, we get an lengthy advertisement for the Avengers. Here? Thor's teaser actually worked better or was preferable. Captain America's wasn't necessary and disappointed me. I was lead to believe it was a great last five minutes.
Not so much. Sort of cheesy. So in contrast to Thor? Captain America had better art direction and was less cheesy, but it also wasn't as much fun or funny, and didn't have as good an ending. So Thor? Maybe not a better film than Captain America, technically speaking, but definitely a more entertaining one. I looked up from Captain America at one point and thought, okay how long is this movie? 2 hours? Damn, long movie. Also how many times do we have to fight Red Skull - only to have him scamper off? I love Hugo Weaving, but please.
The movie was a bit on the repetitive side. It could have been shorter, less "earnest" and
a bit more comical, took itself and its subject matter way too seriously (probably due to the setting), and pacing was off. Chris Evans however was quite good in the role and first half of the flick was by far the best.
Overall rating? B- (If you have to choose which flick to rent? Go for Thor, it's a lot more fun. And has better cameos.)
As an aside? Why is it that all the other Marvel heroes, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man get origin stories that more or less fit the original version, while the X-men don't? Will I ever get to see Scott, Jean, Beast, Angel, and the Iceman work together on the big screen?
I loved the original X-men story leading up to Dark Phoenix, with all the new team members added. But I have yet to see anyone do it, the cartoons sort of did it, but not quite. I also loved the Scott/Jean romance - but I doubt they'll ever do it either. Oh well, it's not like others haven't done it elsewhere, somewhat common trope.
On to Once Upon a Time. My only difficulty with Once is that they are making Regina hateful. I wanted to kill her by the end of the episode, which makes sense considering I was seeing her purely through Emma Swan, Henry, and Mary Margaret's Elizabeth (Snow White) pov's.
Other than that, I'm rather enjoying this show - which is very much a female empowerment piece sans the aggravating victimized little girl or the gal with guy powers. As my pal CW once stated, women are allowed to be powerful in their own right - they aren't given male powers for this to happen.
I want to address what I mean by that quickly...and I guess this works with the review of Captain America above. Today, I listened to someone talk about gender in a way that I never really thought about before. He said that women were permitted to dress like men, but men not like women. Women could wear jeans, a tie, a jacket, etc - even that old 1940's poster of the working factory gal with her sleeves rolled up and in jeans. But if a man wore a dress he would be made fun of, considered a joke. Why? Because we can understand why a woman would want to be more like a man, why she'd want to dress like him, and have his "power" and his "rights" but we can't understand why a man would want to be like a woman, to be the "weaker" sex. The very fact he might want to - upsets people, makes them very angry, and often mean. In Captain America above - there was a big deal made out of how women couldn't fight in the War, that Steve Rodgers wasn't physically strong enough. We are taught from a early age, hard-wired, to view gender in certain way. Unable to see the liminal spaces between, that we can't be defined solely by our gender or sexual orientation - that's not always that definitive.
What I love about Once Upon a Time is that power is explored in whole new way. Men don't have all the power in this series. And how power is weilded is different. Emma Swan has a traditional male role - but she is not super-strong, and she's a bit butch, true, but not definitively so. Snow White/Mary Margaret isn't easily defined either. She's not a damsel.
She's tough and smart, yet also wildly feminine. And here's the thing? She save's the Prince Charming as often as he saves her. They are equals. One gender isn't more powerful or more preferable than another. It's one of the many things that distinguishes Once from Willingham's Fables or for that matter, Greenwalt's Grimm. Once does what Pam Am promised.
In tonight's episode, we learn how Snow White met Prince Charming, who as he states, has a name. It's James in fairy tale land, and David Nolan in the real world. In the real world he's married to Kathleen - the woman that he was engaged to in the fairy tale world but broke it off with because he found Snow White. And Snow has a great line: "Romance doesn't exist, there's no love at first sight, or happily ever after. I want to escape to another realm, an isolated one, where no one can disappoint me ever again." (Be careful what you wish for.)
She's meets him by robbing him and his fiance of their jewels. He pursues her to get the jewels back, particularly his mother's ring. And ends up saving her from the Queen's guards, while she in turn saves him from the Trolls - using a bit of magic and her wits. It's a great twist on the old tale.
In the real world, Henry has talked Emma into convincing Mary M. to read to John Doe who lies in a coma. She does. He magically grabs her hand. And she makes the colossal mistake of telling someone. The Doctor calls Regina. (Does everyone work for her? She's beginning to seem unbeatable - which is important actually, a good villain must seem unbeatable and the hero must be the under-dog, otherwise you won't root for them.) The Doctor is played by David Anders - who looks a lot younger than he did on Vamp Diaries, what did he do get a botox treatment? No dummy, John Doe skaddadles to the woods and hunts for the Troll Bridge.
OR so Henry tells us. We see the story that Mary M told him in the flash-backs (that's the story I related above). Emma, Snow, the Sheriff (who is developing a serious crush on Emma and I keep wondering what fairy tale character he was in the other world...one of the Queen's henchmen? Her huntsman? I can't tell. Also wondered about the Doctor who went on a date with Snow, but had eyes for Red Riding Hood. Is he the wolf? Half the fun of this series is guessing who people were in the other world, assuming they were anyone and didn't just stumble upon Storybrook like Emma did.) go hunting for John Doe, they are joined in short order by Henry. Regina? Seriously, you need to keep a tighter leash on the kid. No wonder Emma worries about him and sticking around. The kid's what - 10? And he manages to run into the woods, at night, by himself and meet up with our gang? Who asks him how he got away from Regina? Oh, he just snuck off. Regina claimed she was going to keep Henry away from Emma - to which I thought, yeah, good luck with that. Considering to date, Emma hasn't sought out Henry, Henry has sought out Emma. Regina's biggest flaw is her arrogance and self-confidence. Also her tendency to underestimate people. Honey? Your son is bright enough to find his real mom, locate her, and bring her back with him and convince her to stay. Also if you want the birth Mom to leave do you really think they way to do it is continuously pissing her off and making it clear that your son has reason to hate you? A little honey goes a long way for both parties.
My problem with Once is Regina is a bit of a nitwit. Very powerful nitwit. But still a nitwit. I'm hoping she gets a bit more interesting as we go and a little less hateful.
I still have no idea what Snow White did to her. I can guess of course.
Of course all of the above is realistic, I mean Regina is afraid of losing Henry. She's also filled with hate for Snow and getting off on Snow's misery. I'm guessing she's the only one who remembers everything? Well, and Rumplestilskin. The two people who engineered the curse?
Again not clear. These emotions most likely cloud her judgment. And she has a history of reacting to situations, not thinking about them. Just getting furious and lashing out.
Like emotional bomb. Emma scared her. She lashes out. And Regina unlike everyone else in town has a lot to lose.
The ending interested me. It seems unhappy, but that's a mislead. David/John Doe/Prince Charming's wife pops up, he has no memory of her - and feels more connected to the women who saved him in the forest. Kathleen Nolan mentions they argued, he left, she never hunted him down, and now she's found him - but he doesn't appear to know her. Regina has Henry, but she doesn't. She went after Henry, adopted him in the hopes of filling the void left by her father who loved her unconditionally and who she killed to enact the curse. But Henry doesn't love her. If anything, he despises her and sees her as evil. She has a person in her life who wants her dead. So what she thinks she has is less real than a fairy tale.
Meanwhile Emma and Mary, who appear on the surface to have no one...end up at the end having each other. The episode in a way is their journey to each other. At the beginning Mary finds Emma sleeping in her car, and offers her a place to stay. Emma shrugs her off, stating she's fine. Henry comes to Emma and gives Emma - Regina's shirt, since Emma clearly didn't bring any clothes with her and needs a change of clothes. At the end, after Regina tells both Mary/Snow and Emma that they have no one! Emma is oddly propelled by Regina's words to seek out Mary and accept her offer. Yes, I need help. And they suddenly have each other. The two women, mother and daughter in fairy tale world, have bonded in Storybrook. The ending isn't that they end up with a guy, but they end up together. Also ironically, the person that Regina is using to fill her void is the product of the love she wished to destroy. And did everything in her power, including kill her own father, to destroy.
Regina says the worst thing in the world is to have no one. No one to love you. But it is clearly a projection of her own fears, for she has no one. Everyone around her fears her, but no one, including Henry loves her. She is of all the characters - the most alone.
John Doe/Charming/David/James - (what is in a name anyhow) - isn't alone. Mary M, Emma, and Henry - his family wander into the woods and save his life. Mary M applies CPR in a strange twist on the kiss he bestowed on her in fairy tale world to wake her from a sleep induced coma. Also John Doe like Emma Swan was found unconscious on the side of a road, except he was found by Regina who saved him, making me wonder if she remembers who he is or just sensed it? The appearance of Kathleen raised more questions for Emma than it answered and made her even more suspicious of Regina. Also things change. Relationships. They aren't stagnant. Time is no longer frozen. 28 years have passed where everything stayed the same.
Now, it begins to change.
Emma and Snow gain power from each other. They save the boys, Henry and John Doe. Gender is there, but not. It's a welcome relief and a surprise. Since I didn't expect from a show produced by Disney, and the writers of Lost. It's the sort of thing I thought I'd only get from another cult writer once upon a time, but...turns out...one never knows. Best to keep an open mind.
Late. Will write about The Good Wife at another time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 08:23 am (UTC)I didn't read your review yet, because I've not had the time to see the episode yet. I just wanted to comment on the female empowerment thing.
I'm very weary of the thing that you are describing because I really resent male/female labels and think we would be better off without them alltogether.
I don't regard things like powers or anything as male and being beautiful or empathic as female. I always found these categories massively containing because traditional "female" qualities usually don't work for me. Also I think they are often assigned to women by men and not inherently theirs, it's nice to assign to the other class, that they have to be nice to look at, sympathetic to your needs, you know "good at cleaning" such stuff. I often have the impression that these are fake feminine mystique qualities that only keep women from focusing on their real much wider range of qualities and interests that include of course the traditionally male things because the vast majority of things was hogged by men.
I'm usually quite happy if women just shit on their stereotype (take Starbuck for an example) and I don't think it makes them unfeminine.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 01:19 pm (UTC)I think it's easy for women in our society to be "Starbuck" - that's acceptable in media.
(ex: Zoe, Starbuck, Aeryn Sun, Buffy, etc), but
we don't see the opposite as often.
If you can flip it and honestly state that seeing a guy in a dress or a guy playing a female role instead of the violent male protector role?
There's nothing wrong with being feminine. What I have difficulty with is the definitive roles that are hard-wired in our pysche.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 02:39 pm (UTC)Is it? I had a lot of the more barfworthy men I know complain that Starbuck was so butch, such a manwoman etc.
I think the female box has broadened a little, but in general it's still more common for the women in the media to stick with it (having passive, nurturing roles or being all about sexy, etc., fixated on emotions and personal life etc.)
If you can flip it and honestly state that seeing a guy in a dress or a guy playing a female role instead of the violent male protector role?
I usually love it when men flip their role, but I also think it does not completely compare, because it does not spell empowerment to me.
The stereotypically male role is way way larger than the female role in the first place and more prestigious. I do like it when men get out of their box too, but I'm very hesitant to say it's the same thing.
If you read older sexist texts on which current sexism is of course based, you read men who go as far as simply describing positive as male and negative as female. To say it bluntly women did get the leftover stereotypes men really didn't want and while the most desirable state for me is certainly that there are no gender roles at all, I don't think men are missing out to the same extent if they pass on the stereotypically female interests/qualities.
I find it more pleasing when men play to a feminine stereotype, but that is because the feminine stereotype is set to please, not to empower.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 05:32 pm (UTC)That's not my point.
Hmmm. Okay trying another way to explain? A woman can go outside and wear jeans just about anywhere in the US (with the exception of few enclaves here and there). In the 1950s - she couldn't, some places, not just about anywhere.
And this is true of most of Europe, as well as Australia. In 1950s she wore skirt. A guy cannot wear skirt and blouse and heels just about anywhere in the US or most of Europe.
The fact that he can't - is in some respects a misogynistic statement about the feminine. It's stating that while we totally understand why a woman might want to wear traditionally male attire, take on traditional male roles, it makes no sense why a man would want to belittle himself by wearing traditional female attire or traditional female roles - if not as a joke. An example: in most comedies, including Buffy and Angel - see Reptile Boy - Xander is hazed by being forced to wear a dress, heels, and makeup - this is considered funny. In most fanfic - the humor is derived from the guy acting like a girl or gal. Stating - why would you want to be "the second class citizen"? It makes sense she'd want to rise to your level, but why would you want to sink to her's?
I'm not saying this view is correct, just the opposite. But it is so ingrained that we (general we - not specific) fail to see it. And only notice it when it is applied to women in terms of "butch" or to a guy - "sissy". Allowances are not made for those who fit neither.
Again, I'm not arguing against your points above nor am I saying women have it better, quite the opposite. What I'm stating is that we should ask the question - why isn't it as socially acceptable for a guy to show up to work in a skirt and blouse as it is for a woman to show up in pants and a tie? Granted in some places - it's not acceptable for women to show up in this attire, I'm aware of that. I'm focusing on the areas where it is and asking the question.
I hope that clarifies.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 10:27 pm (UTC)The dressing to please the eye, the make up, the hiding or revealing of body parts that could induce a sexual response. The "feminine" way to dress is all about men.
I'm not sure if some of the female symbols/ stereotypes can ever really gain status because their very essence is about objectification and submission.
I think for it to become as acceptable for men to crossdress as it is for women, it would not only need a society that is finally over gender. It would also need a society that is over power.
That female is associated with submission and disempowerment is deffinitly a misogynist thing, but that those feminine symbols are associated with it is a different story. Those things often directly aim at making the people who display them look physically weak/ childlike/ not a danger/ powerless.
I don't feel that this "femininity" has much to do with being female. If I would draw a racial analogy it feels a bit like I would say chains are typical for black people to claim that these "feminine" things have really something to do with being female instead of directly symbolizing a state of disempowerment.
I think I am probably getting carried away with my own rather extreme feelings on the issue. I really felt these supposedly feminine things like a ball and chain until I reached adulthood and started reject them completely.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 10:47 pm (UTC)I didn't mean that it was "mysterious", just that I think we don't challenge it. If men get beaten up or accused of "cross-dressing" for wearing a dress, when it should be no different than putting on a pair of jeans...what hit me, or woke me up, was that laughing at the man in the skirt? Can be perceived as deeply misognyistic. It never occurred to me before. But it truly is. Worse? Beating him up...it is a statement against women.
The empowerment needs to go beyond male/female gender specifications. It has to include people who don't identify with either, people who on the outside appear to be one, yet inside are another.
Basically, I was discussing something that made me think in a new way. Your mileage may vary. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-07 11:11 pm (UTC)I think I understand now the two different discussions we're having here. You are talking about variations of the old "throws like a girl" insult which yes is deeply misogynist (and it goes without saying that to ridicule or bully people is always the lowest of the low).
I'm talking more about the outward symbols and if I'd really defend them as female or if I think of them as symbols of oppression that no one really needs.
Yes, exactly. That's what I was trying to explain ;-)
Date: 2011-11-08 12:16 am (UTC)We were talking at cross-purposes. Happens a lot, or to me, at any rate. Highly frustrating.
The latter conversation, I find really difficult to discuss unless both people are really good linguists or you fall into head-ache inducing arguments over semantics or the true meaning of feminism or feminine vs. masculaine.. Because language can be limiting and you have to be precise in word choice. Also symbols can be interpreted in various manners and it's not always quite as clear cut or straightforward - so much is determined by culture, background, experience. Often I find myself getting into head-ache inducing battles on this topic with people I actually really agree with. Because we perceive the symbol or define the term ever so slightly differently. Sometimes that slight difference is enough.
Example: my brother and I had an epic fight once on whether a paint was cream or off-white. It was important - we had run out of paint and he had to get more paint to match it. But it went on forever.
And we've also had epic battles over symbols and their outward representations - you should have heard the fights we had regarding the symbols in Silence of the Lambs. Yet, we tend to generally agree, it's just we come at the topic from vastly different angles and are incredibly stubborn and opinionated.
Re: Yes, exactly. That's what I was trying to explain ;-)
Date: 2011-11-08 07:05 am (UTC)My concern is mostly that defending "feminine" symbols derails from actual feminism. To bring it back the to earth let me give an example. Take high heels as a feminine symbol.
I strongly mind discrimination of women in physical jobs like say working at a construction site, but I don't mind the discrimination of people wearing heels at a construction site, since it would be monstrously impractical and can be easily remedied. On the other hand I also think that forcing women to wear them in representative jobs (and not men) is another form of oppression. Ergo, symbol of submission, not symbol for female to me.
Re: Yes, exactly. That's what I was trying to explain ;-)
Date: 2011-11-08 01:49 pm (UTC)Example - a guy or a gal wearing a skirt and heels when they are going to a construction site or into a situation in which wearing this attire is either dangerous or clearly inappropriate - is obviously insane.
But...disallowing men to wear them in say the fashion industry or at a cocktail party, or enforcing the rule on women in say an office job where they walk to and from work each day...is equally inappropriate.
Like everything - we (general) have to be careful of generalizations and absolutes. In some scenarios the attire is appropriate. (Although since I despise heels - I'm of the opinion they should be optional in ALL situations, and forcing someone to wear them is stupid and cruel - painful things, heels. ;-) )