| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 787.1 | | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Tue Sep 12 1989 20:22 | 13 |
| It sounds like mere male fantasy to me. From what you described,
she was hot at times, demure at times, but never did she "take
control" and "get" anything. Not freedom, not pleasure, nothing.
She gave and they got, no matter which role she played. Yup, pretty
standard fare for the media.
But the answer to your question lies in the definition of the terms.
If you believe they are opposites, (as our culture does about women),
then, no. It's the old madonna/whore syndrome. You're either a
good girl or a bad girl, differentiated by your attitude and actions
toward sex. She seems to have played both for the men in the movie
and the audience. Neither for her.
|
| 787.2 | Not that simple... | VALKYR::RUST | | Wed Sep 13 1989 14:14 | 40 |
| Actually, you might want to check this movie out and see for yourself.
As I recall <spoiler warning if you're planning to see it>:
the girl's actions resulted not only in her falling under the
protection of the robber chief (played by Rutger Hauer, by the way)
instead of becoming common property to all the men, but in eventually
destroying the robbers' cohesiveness and leading to their downfall. By
the end of the film, most of the robbers are dead, the girl is free,
and has been reunited with her lover - who greets her gladly, despite
knowing what she has been through. (This, of course, is not the norm
for a medieval epic, in which a "ruined" woman's only proper way out is
death - either literal, or "death to the world" by joining a convent.)
This particular girl was depicted as being very strong and
self-assured, but also vain and easily swayed by physical temptations
(she found herself drawn to the robber and had quite a difficult time
choosing to help her lover at her captor's expense). While some of this
probably still does sound like "typical male fantasy," a good bit of it
is "typical female fantasy" too (captured by the handsome robber, can
she persuade him to give up his life of crime, etc.). The end result is
not typical at all.
I'd give the movie points for effort, for some of the performances, for
the sets, costumes, props, and period detail - but the story was
rambling and rather too long, and I couldn't tell whether they were
trying to be deliberately obscure or just couldn't write a coherent
script.
By the by, I use the term "girl" deliberately, as many of her actions
seemed motivated more by youthful indecision and/or vanity than by any
well-thought-out plan. Still, under the circumstances she was
remarkably self-possessed, and made every effort to manage her own fate
rather than sitting back and waiting to be rescued. I didn't _like_
her; in fact, I didn't really like any of the characters, with the
exception of one old soldier. Going by past experience, a rambling
story and unlikeable characters seem to make this a certified "art
film" (she said, only half facetiously).
-b
|
| 787.3 | | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Wed Sep 13 1989 14:48 | 4 |
| Re .2:
Since when is it a "typical female fantasy" to be "captured by a
handsome robber"? Could this be another typical male fantasy?
|
| 787.4 | nope | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Sep 13 1989 15:06 | 10 |
| Dorian,
In Nancy' Friday's two books on women's erotic fantasies, (Secret
Garden and <mumble> she reports that many women sent her such
fantasies. One psychological role that they played was to
give the woman 'permission' to have and enjoy sex in their
fantasy. They were not fatasies of actual rape or violation
nor should they be construed as a desire for same.
Bonnie
|
| 787.5 | "My Secret Garden" and "Forbidden Flowers" | TLE::D_CARROLL | On the outside, looking in | Wed Sep 13 1989 18:24 | 17 |
| Bonnie says:
> In Nancy' Friday's two books on women's erotic fantasies, (Secret
> Garden and <mumble> she reports that many women sent her such fantasies.
^^^^^^^^
"Forbidden Flowers"
> They were not fatasies of actual rape or violation
> nor should they be construed as a desire for same.
Big point I want to emphasize - Fantasizing about something (even rape or
violation) does not mean that you want it to happen. I get *very* angry
when I hear women criticize other women for politically incorrect *fantasies*.
I mean, get real!
D!
|
| 787.6 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Sep 13 1989 18:51 | 5 |
| Thanks D! for the title assist!
:-)
Bonnie
|
| 787.7 | Round Robin | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Wed Sep 13 1989 20:02 | 18 |
| OK, so first she "belonged" to her lover, then to all the soldiers,
then she was "rescued" from all the soldiers by belonging to the
head honcho only, (aka "handsome robber"), who, (I'm sure not until
*he* was through with her), delivered her back into the hands of her
original lover, (ah, a *benevolent*, handsome robber!).
I don't know too many "self-assured" females who get passed around like
this.
Are you thinking that because the good and kind robber gave her
back to her boyfriend that that righted all the wrongs? Because
she "got away" in the end, all's well that ends well?
Without having seen the movie, I suspect the female in question
was all innocence, turning on the "wicked" as merely a coping device,
a la Ned Beatty "squealing like a pig" in Deliverance. Was he both
human and pig? Would anyone suggest that he was being self-assured?
He "got out" in the end too...
|
| 787.8 | Fantasy vs Reality | SYSENG::BITTLE | coming up for air | Wed Sep 13 1989 20:04 | 74 |
| re: .5 (D! Carroll)
---------------
> Big point I want to emphasize - Fantasizing about something (even rape or
> violation) does not mean that you want it to happen.
Thanks for pointing this out, D!.
Somewhere in another topic in this conference, Chelsea explained this
whole concept very well.
Chelsea's note influenced me so much, that I am no longer angered by the
knowledge that women fantasize about violent sex. Before, I was of
the opinion that women who had such fantasies were being _quite_ ignorant,
and if they really knew what it was like, they would be repulsed by the
thought. Chelsea explained it in terms of control: even though your
fantasy is of rape or violence or struggle, you are still in *control*,
because it's *your* fantasy (as opposed to being at a total loss of control
in the real life situation.)
*However*, ya know who can't/doesn't make the above distinction between
(fantasizing about rape) and (wanting to be raped)?
[uh-oh, where's my kevlar when I need it?]
MANY MEN (of the general population - of **course** I'm not referring
to most men of this conference :-)
MOST MALE JUDGES (ex: in a Texas case in the late 60's/early 70's, the
man in "People vs Him" was acquitted because the
woman admitted to having fantasized about rape)
MOST MALE D.A.'s
MOST MALE JURY MEMBERS, MANY FEMALE JURY MEMBERS
(BTW, older women are the *worst* jurors to have in a rape trial)
Can you guess why? (that would probably go in another topic)
I would say IMHO, but the above is not my opinion, it's my experience;
it's others' experiences.
And because of that...because of...
1) the knowledge (may I venture - knowledge-based facts?)
that understanding
{fantasizing about rape <> wanting to be raped}
is too vast a leap of logic for so many members of the other
gender... who are frequently in positions of power to
make dangerous use of that absurdity
2) the damage that the misconception causes in general
"but don't all women fantasize about being raped?"
read: "but don't all women want to be raped?",
or, "at some point in every rape, the woman begins to enjoy it".
(from interviews of men on the subject of sexual violence in
the book I quoted in 525.88)
3) my pessimism that any drastic change of a significant
number of male viewpoints in this area is likely in
the near future
... I kinda, sorta, in a way, wish that all discussions of female
fantasy about rape could be kept strictly amongst women only. This
isn't very realistic, of course, but my reasoning is that if men
didn't know about it (the fantasies), then they couldn't use it against
so many women (in so many ways...not just in a courtroom).
nancy b.
|
| 787.9 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | | Wed Sep 13 1989 20:41 | 17 |
| re: .7
She wasn't let go at the end of the movie, she was rescued by her
original lover (who by the way was not a lover by choice by by
arrangement of her/his fathers).
Where I saw her being in limited conrol was when the lead soldier
thried to humiliate her by raping her in front of his men (and his
women), she ended up embarassing him by becomeing the aggressor. He
tried to stop but she held on to him with leg legs and wouldn't let him
go and he wasn't too pleased to lose control of the situation. I do
think she did it to cope with the situation but throughout the rest of
the movie he never held her down by physical force again.
Maybe it was a small victory on her part, but a victory none the less
ed
|
| 787.10 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | The quality of mercy is not strained | Wed Sep 13 1989 20:48 | 6 |
| Perhaps you're not explaining well ed, but it still sounds like a male fantasy
to me ("oooh honey, give it to me longer!").
I didn't notice the one woman who claims to have seen the movie directly
adressing this part of the movie in her evaluation.
Mez
|
| 787.11 | Feeling fractious... | VALKYR::RUST | | Wed Sep 13 1989 22:12 | 63 |
| Re .7: Um, could you please back off on the forceful opinions a bit,
considering (as you admit) that you haven't seen the film? Much as you
may believe that there's no such thing as a movie involving rape which
is not a purely male-dominated, male-fantasy, "drool" film, I think
this one isn't quite what you're imagining. (Then again, maybe it is;
but we don't know that yet, do we?)
[Wait a sec - am I denying anybody's feelings here? Heaven forbid...
Is it better if I say, "It bothers me when you express such harsh
opinions in the absence of actual experience"? (Oh, my gosh, I just
made a processing-type comment; I'll never be able to hold my head up
again...)]
Ahem.
Re .10: As I recall, the initial rape scene could be interpreted in a
number of ways; I thought she "gained control" by behaving in such a
sensual fashion that the robber found himself unwillingly attracted to
her (before anybody flames, I am not advocating any of this behavior,
nor suggesting that "women really want it," just recounting my
interpretation of the film!) and thus less willing to hand her over to
the others. I don't recall the scene being particularly prurient - the
robber was clearly being put at a disadvantage, and was not a
triumphant conqueror by any means.
I remember being impressed that the rape scene did *not* turn into the
usual whimpering-victim-vows-revenge bit (the guy in "Deliverance" was
an utter whimpering victim, poor bastard); she obviously didn't enjoy
the situation, but - for what it's worth - the girl was definitely
taking action, instead of playing the helpless victim. [OK, OK, *I
thought* she obviously didn't enjoy the situation; others may decide
she obviously did, in which case they'd see an exploitative movie,
while I did not...]
Anyway, trust me, the fate that eventually befalls the robbers - in
which the girl plays a significant part - is _not_ part of any typical
male fantasy I've ever heard of. (Her lover's "rescue" of her was
interesting, in that he required a good bit of rescuing himself, as I
recall; no typical heroes here.)
Note about the initial lover: while he may have been the family's
choice and not hers, the first *I* saw of them (I missed the first bit
of the film) they were in a passionate embrace, swearing eternal love.
It's an interesting thought that perhaps her first reaction to him was
motivated by the same feelings that made her try to attract/disarm the
robber - in both cases, she wanted to maintain some power herself, and
chose the only method that her society permitted women. [Pure
speculation on my part, here; I'm more than capable of reading more
things into a film than the director actually put there.]
As to the title of the base note (which I don't believe I addressed), I
don't know that I'd call her either wicked or innocent. I found her
rather callous (in keeping with the times), rather naive (though that
changed quickly), and very self-centered - come to think of it, if you
liked Scarlett O'Hara you'd probably like this kid. (I didn't.) I
simply don't think she was philosophical enough to have any moral
beliefs at all.
Funny - when I saw the movie (and it's been a year or so), I remember
thinking how peculiar it was, but never thought it could be so
controversial...
-b
|
| 787.12 | Maybe | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Thu Sep 14 1989 16:42 | 23 |
| Re .4
Yes, I'm aware of Friday's books. But there's a difference between
women having such fantasies privately, mentally, and the graphic, visual
representation of such fantasies in the media, where -- IMHO -- they might
very well give people (men) the wrong idea and be construed as expressing
an actual desire for rape or violation.
Also...granted that women do have such fantasies, has anyone ever
questioned where they come from? Are they "natural"? Or could it be that in
our culture, in which images of *any* sexual experience have long been
overwhelmingly male-oriented, women simply haven't evolved their own images
for expressing their sexual desire/experience, so that when they fantasize,
they identify with the images of themselves that are available
(woman-as-victim)?
For women to need "permission" to have and enjoy sex, is surely a tragic
commentary on our culture. But, given that culture, maybe the fantasies
Friday reports do meet that need. I guess what I'm saying though is, that
when Hollywood gets their hands on such fantasies, they can all too easily
come across as a whole 'nuther kind of thing... namely, the typical male
fantasy that women *really do* want to be raped.
|
| 787.13 | Fantasy tangent | TLE::D_CARROLL | On the outside, looking in | Thu Sep 14 1989 17:24 | 24 |
| re -1, and .8...
I think it's a fascinating problem - how do we tell women it is okay to
fantasize what they wish, and yet not allow men *and* women to misinterpret
those fantasies. How do we teach people (jurors, judges, and ordinary-joes
alike) that { fantasy <> desire }?
As for the question of whether these fantasies are "natural"? I find
the question is in itself fallacious, because it assumes that people are
something seperateable from the society grew up in. "What would these women
think if we took away the affects of their society?" The answer is they
wouldn't be women...they wouldn't be human...so the question really has
no meaning. Perhaps the fact that women *do* fantasize about rape reflects
poorly on our society, but to say that society "forced" those images on
women doesn't make much sense, since the society you grew up in is an
integral part of who you are.
I think these issues deserve their own note, but I suspect the issue is too
touchy to promote a civilized discussion. Too many of the kneejerk reactions
Nancy describes in her note. Sorry for getting off the topic...
D! (who also fantasizes about getting fired so she can have an excuse to
go off and join the Peace Corp or become a writer, or...but would be very
upset if it every happened!)
|
| 787.14 | You hit me on a bad, (good?!) day! | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Thu Sep 14 1989 21:12 | 71 |
| re: VALKYR::RUST
> Re .7: Um, could you please back off on the forceful opinions a bit,
Just me? Aren't all these opinions, (the very title of the string),
rather *forceful* ones? No? Just mine? OK.
>Much as you may believe that there's no such thing as a movie involving
>rape which is not a purely male-dominated, male-fantasy, "drool" film,
Um, you could please back off on the conjecture a bit??
> As I recall,...
And I suppose THIS "opinion" is to be taken *seriously*.
> the initial rape scene could be interpreted in a number of ways;
Your "opinion", of course, is the closest to correct, eh?
>I thought she "gained control" by behaving in such a sensual fashion that
>the robber found himself unwillingly attracted to her (before anybody flames,
>I am not advocating any of this behavior,
Who cares what you're advocating. I'm interested in your interpretation.
And it sounds like you interpreted it to be what I consider a typical male
fantasy. Do you know women to whom you were not attracted until they
"behaved in such a sensual fashion [that] you were unwillingly attracted to
them"?
> I don't recall the scene being particularly prurient
Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant.
>robber was clearly being put at a disadvantage, and was not a triumphant
>conqueror by any means.
You saw the flick - did he get her or or didn't he?
>I remember being impressed that the rape scene did *not* turn into the
>usual whimpering-victim-vows-revenge bit..
Ah, a "classy" rape scene! She neither whimpered nor sought revenge!
S'cuse me, I didn't know the difference.
>she obviously didn't enjoy the situation..
Still, it wasn't *nasty* rape in your mind, eh? Just *nice* rape.
>Anyway, trust me,
Ahem.
>the fate that eventually befalls the robbers...
Yes, this is indeed more significant than her fate!
> I found her rather callous... rather naive... and very self-centered
> I simply don't think she was philosophical enough to have any moral
> beliefs at all.
Well, who could have sympathy for HER? Such a female *deserves* what
she gets! I'll bet she even dressed provocatively! ;-)
>Funny - when I saw the movie (and it's been a year or so), I remember
>thinking how peculiar it was, but never thought it could be so
>controversial...
Funny, they never do.
|
| 787.15 | Remember what they say about "assume"... | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Fri Sep 15 1989 01:06 | 13 |
| Re: .14
Sandy,
I find myself wondering if you would have written your note the same
way if Beth Rust had signed her first name to her messages. Would
you have allowed her her opinions on the movie, which she has seen
and you haven't?
This has been a fascinating conversation so far.... and not for
the subject matter.
Steve
|
| 787.16 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | You've crossed over the river... | Fri Sep 15 1989 12:43 | 11 |
| > I find myself wondering if you would have written your note the same
> way if Beth Rust had signed her first name to her messages.
HeHeHe.
> This has been a fascinating conversation so far.... and not for
> the subject matter.
I thought I was the only one who thought so.
The Doctah
|
| 787.17 | Yeah, I guess so. | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Fri Sep 15 1989 12:57 | 8 |
| I suppose I would have asked instead if she believed that she could
"act in such a sensual manner" as to make a, (previously uninterested),
man unwillingly attracted to her.
And I'd drop the flippant remark to the "trust me" phrase. Other
than that, I respond to the ideas expressed and the words used rather
than the sex of the person saying them. I realize not everyone is
like that. HeHeHe.
|
| 787.18 | Maybe we're "identifying with the aggressor"? | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Fri Sep 15 1989 13:04 | 28 |
|
Re .13, which calls the question of whether women's rape fantasies
are "natural," a "fallacious" question...
Gee, I thought the "nature vs. nurture" distinction was a common
one in psychology. Must have taken the wrong course.
At the risk of commiting another phallacy (oops!), I'd suggest that
what people want, or think they want, can be very much conditioned
by what society tells them they want. If this weren't true, the entire
advertising industry might just crumble away! I guess you'd agree with
me here. But I also think that such conditioning can hide deeper, more
"natural" desires.
If women (embarrassingly enough) have sexual desires, and (even
more embarrassing) fantasize about them, what's so surprising about
their fantasies picking up on what have long been the only images of
women-as-sexual-beings available in our wonderful media...women as
sex *objects*? But perhaps if we didn't have those images assaulting
us everywhere; perhaps if we hadn't been brought up for generations
to believe that we're not supposed to have sexual autonomy; perhaps
if we were free of that kind of interference and able to understand
our own sexuality better, we'd articulate images very different from
the ones we're so familiar with, images more "naturally" our own. And
then those images would start showing up in our fantasies...
Whether they'd sell at the box office, though, that's another question.
;-)
|
| 787.19 | What makes a fantasy "unnatural"? | TLE::D_CARROLL | On the outside, looking in | Fri Sep 15 1989 13:41 | 41 |
| > sex *objects*? But perhaps if we didn't have those images assaulting
> us everywhere; perhaps if we hadn't been brought up for generations
> to believe that we're not supposed to have sexual autonomy; perhaps
> if we were free of that kind of interference and able to understand
> our own sexuality better, we'd articulate images very different from
> the ones we're so familiar with, images more "naturally" our own. And
> then those images would start showing up in our fantasies...
If we were brought up in a different society, we would have different
fantasies. I think that is almost a given. But society will affect our
fantasies; our personalities. I think it is "natural" that society affect
our personalities. I think trying to define what a woman's fantasies
would be if she were raised in *no* *society* is inherently meaningless...
I guess what I don't understand is why you seem to think that just because
society influences our fantasies, that those fantasies aren't truly "our
own". Society effects our personalities, yes those are usually seen as
truly "our own". "Our self" is affected *hugely* by the society we are in,
and therefore all things that are "our own".
What do you mean by "naturally our own"? Who are you referring to by "our"?
If the "we" implied there were raised in a different society, we would be
different persons, and the fantasies would then belong to different persons.
I don't see fantasies at all as something inherently "natural". Perhaps
fantasies result from unmet needs within ourselves; if so, I could
concieve of a society where all needs are met, and therefore no one even
has fantasies. Is this more "natural"? Therefore, I don't think there are
any particular fantasies that women are "born to have", and that any other
fantasies mean that society is twisting those natural fantasies into
"artificial fantasies."
Perhaps in a society where women were treated as people to be respected
as such, loved an cherished for their minds, bodies and souls, and were
fully equal and not objectified would produce different fantasies in women.
Perhaps such fantasies and such a society would be "better". But the
images those women fantasized about would still be affected by the media,
and the media's perception of women, and sex, and men, and whatnot. So
you could say those fantasies are equally "unnatural."
D!
|
| 787.20 | What, me argue? Naaahhh... | VALKYR::RUST | | Fri Sep 15 1989 14:05 | 162 |
| Let's try for a more formal rebuttal here.
> OK, so first she "belonged" to her lover, then to all the soldiers,
> then she was "rescued" from all the soldiers by belonging to the
> head honcho only, (aka "handsome robber"), who, (I'm sure not until
> *he* was through with her), delivered her back into the hands of her
> original lover, (ah, a *benevolent*, handsome robber!).
>
The word "belonged" changes meaning quite a bit during this sequence,
though you have got the basic events right. She "belonged" to her
fiance in the traditionally accepted sense; she "belonged" to her
captors in the sense that all captives do; she managed to avoid being
abused by all the male captors by choosing to seek the protection of
(or to seduce; the film viewer's interpretation may vary) the head
honcho, whose handsomeness was only relevant to my comment about the
typical female fantasy. (I don't know of typical female fantasies
involving being carried off by really repulsive-looking guys.) As for
the "until he was through with her", that didn't happen; she and her
fiance, plus a small army led by her father, eventually managed to
defeat the robbers.
> I don't know too many "self-assured" females who get passed around like
> this.
Does this mean you are theorizing that a female who is self-assured
cannot be kidnapped or raped, or that you cannot believe she maintained
any self-assurance after such happenings? I believe that her degree of
composure helped her get through her ordeal, and I found that an
improvement over the more commonly-seen film episodes of
woman-captured, sits-and-waits, is-rescued-by-hero.
> Are you thinking that because the good and kind robber gave her
> back to her boyfriend that that righted all the wrongs? Because
> she "got away" in the end, all's well that ends well?
Of course not. Did I say such a thing? (I also never said "good and
kind robber," nor that he "gave her back" - which he didn't. But I
quibble.) My attempted point was that she was in a very unpleasant
situation and did her best to get out of it - and, in response to the
initial question posed in .0, I thought she did so out of
self-assurance and the desire to survive, rather than by being
"wicked".
> Without having seen the movie, I suspect the female in question
> was all innocence, turning on the "wicked" as merely a coping device,
> a la Ned Beatty "squealing like a pig" in Deliverance. Was he both
> human and pig? Would anyone suggest that he was being self-assured?
> He "got out" in the end too...
What do you mean by "all innocence"? She was young, yes, and innocent
of such rude experiences as being captured and raped, but she did not
behave (to my mind) like a complete innocent; she seemed very much
aware of how to manipulate the robbers to her advantage. It _may_ have
been the very elemental "seek protection from the strongest," but
(having seen the movie) I felt she was more calculating than that.
As for the poor bastard in "Deliverance," he was so terrified that he
simply obeyed every command his captors gave in fear of his life. The
girl in the film (while not subjected to identical pressures) chose to
do a little manipulation herself rather than be passive. He was not
self-assured; she was.
>> Re .7: Um, could you please back off on the forceful opinions a bit,
>
>Just me? Aren't all these opinions, (the very title of the string),
>rather *forceful* ones? No? Just mine? OK.
"Forceful considering you hadn't seen the movie", OK? I'm not fond of
being told that my interpretation of something is completely wrong when
the accuser hasn't seen it.
>>Much as you may believe that there's no such thing as a movie involving
>>rape which is not a purely male-dominated, male-fantasy, "drool" film,
>
>Um, you could please back off on the conjecture a bit??
One good conjecture deserves another.
>> the initial rape scene could be interpreted in a number of ways;
>
>Your "opinion", of course, is the closest to correct, eh?
Closer than that of one who hasn't seen the film yet. So there.
>>I thought she "gained control" by behaving in such a sensual fashion that
>>the robber found himself unwillingly attracted to her (before anybody flames,
>>I am not advocating any of this behavior,
>
>Who cares what you're advocating. I'm interested in your interpretation.
>And it sounds like you interpreted it to be what I consider a typical male
>fantasy. Do you know women to whom you were not attracted until they
>"behaved in such a sensual fashion [that] you were unwillingly attracted to
>them"?
I didn't say he wasn't attracted to her in the first place; the point
was that she changed his intent to rape and humiliate the captive into
his intent to keep her for himself. By doing so, she reduced the
likelihood that she would be killed. (If it's a typical male fantasy
that women-as-seducers are all-powerful, then I'd have to agree that
this hints at that; but, again, I rather thought that was a typical
female fantasy... "Buy this perfume and all the men will lick your
feet.")
Actually, I can't argue that there are _no_ male fantasies to be derived
from the film; fantasies cover too wide a ground. My point was that the
film is not one big male fantasy, does not involve the usual
hero/villain/heroine stereotypes, and is not a run-of-the-mill medieval
sword-fight epic.
>>robber was clearly being put at a disadvantage, and was not a triumphant
>>conqueror by any means.
>
>You saw the flick - did he get her or or didn't he?
Hm. He raped her, yes. She got away eventually. Are you saying that
because he raped her, she had "lost" and had no further opportunity for
a successful life? I don't understand your point here; seems to me that
it's better to survive such an ordeal than to not survive it, and in
that sense she did maintain some control over her own fate.
>>I remember being impressed that the rape scene did *not* turn into the
>>usual whimpering-victim-vows-revenge bit..
>
>Ah, a "classy" rape scene! She neither whimpered nor sought revenge!
> S'cuse me, I didn't know the difference.
She _took_ revenge, rather than whimpering about it. Sounds assertive
to me. (And I didn't say "classy". Wasn't there something in here
somewhere about putting words in peoples' mouths?)
>>she obviously didn't enjoy the situation..
>
>Still, it wasn't *nasty* rape in your mind, eh? Just *nice* rape.
No such thing as a nice rape, as if I needed to say that. In the sense
of how nasty it was to _watch_ (this from a person who generally
refuses to watch anything involving rape - I wouldn't have seen this
movie if I'd known), then, yes, I found it less nasty than others I've
seen, because of her self-control. Since I perceived her as planning for
her survival rather than dwelling on her current victimization, it was
easier for me to empathize.
>> I found her rather callous... rather naive... and very self-centered
>> I simply don't think she was philosophical enough to have any moral
>> beliefs at all.
>
>Well, who could have sympathy for HER? Such a female *deserves* what
>she gets! I'll bet she even dressed provocatively! ;-)
Sigh... Am I supposed to _like_ her just because she's female? Just
because she has a strong sense of self-preservation? Isn't it possible
to admire some qualities in a person without liking that person? The
"deserves what she gets" bit _is_ a standard MCP remark, of course, but
the events of the film never so much as hinted at that...
Oh, wait! Now that I think of it, her bodice _was_ cut a bit tight;
why, the little slut must have gone _looking_ for those robbers! ;-)
And that ends today's movie review, folks. Tomorrow, we'll discuss
NOVA's "The Miracle of Life" - Educational Video, or Pornography?
-b
|
| 787.21 | Typical female fantasy? I don't think so. | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Sep 15 1989 15:40 | 16 |
| RE: .20
Your description of the movie sounds more and more like a
soft porn male fantasy with every note you write.
The innocent girl "turns the tables" on the rapist by being
sexually aggressive (which results in his feeling "affectionate"
towards her instead of wanting to kill her.) And this kidnapper,
rapist and would-be killer is "cute" to boot! Geepers..! <swoon>
What more could any typical female fantasy ask for, one might
wonder...
I think I'm going to throw up.
|
| 787.22 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Sama sadik ya sadila... | Fri Sep 15 1989 16:01 | 12 |
| I think Beth makes a very good point about the value of actually
_seeing_ the flick. It's certainly possible to form valid opinions
based on someone else's description of _their_ experience of a film,
but that certainly seems a pretty shaky way to do it. I'd probably
have a hard time arguing that someone's interpretation is incorrect if
all I had to go on were the very interpretation I'm claiming is flawed!
On the other hand, cumulative evidence suggests that if this flick
_isn't_ meant to hook into men's fantansies rather than women's then
it's a real anomaly!
=maggie
|
| 787.23 | Any Day's A Good Day | FDCV01::ROSS | | Fri Sep 15 1989 16:06 | 20 |
| Re: .21
What do *you* know about what fantasies males have?
Have you taken a poll of every male you've ever known, and
asked him about his fantasies?
Have you, like Sandy, also not seen the movie?
I'm sure you know that not all fantasies are sexual in nature.
I find it curious that you felt it necessary to preface the
word "fantasy" with the phrase "soft porn".
It does tend to slant the meaning somewhat. I'm wondering if
you accidentally used it.
Alan
|
| 787.24 | I think we're all innocent and evil at the same time | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Fri Sep 15 1989 16:07 | 34 |
| re: .18
I have sexual desires, I fantasize about them, and I find nothing
embarrassing about either statement.
Sometimes I like to fantasize about being dominant, conquering,
all-powerful. Sometimes I fantasize I'm an earth-mother Goddess.
Sometimes I fantasize physically impossible, or at least unlikely,
things that I would find extremely uncomfortable to do in real
life. Sometimes I fantasize tender romances and sometimes I
fantasize rape scenes in the mud. Sometimes I'm myself, sometimes
I fantasize I'm another woman, sometimes I fantasize I'm a man.
Sometimes I like looking at other people's fantasies (usually
called porn).
None of this has anything to do with unmet needs in real life.
It's just a way of safely exploring the possibilities.
Even in real life, I don't like being sexually autonomous all the
time. Sometimes I like to be the agressor and sometimes I like to
be dominated. Sometimes I like the raw and raunchy and sometimes
I like the tender and romantic. Sometimes the only thing I want
is sex, completely unattached from emotions.
I don't see anything wrong with any of this. No single fantasy is
inherently wrong or bad -- or good, either. And no single fantasy
gives any indication of the fantasizer's overall attitude,
orientation, or degree of sexual liberation and autonomy. Maybe
if a person always has the same fantasy, and can't visualize any
other way of doing things, and insists on doing things that way n
real life, it's a problem. But you can't tell that from one
sample.
--bonnie
|
| 787.25 | | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Sep 15 1989 16:32 | 22 |
| RE: .22
Beth can interpret the film any way she chooses, but I can't
help but feel a certain level of revulsion at the suggestion that
being sexually aggressive towards one's kidnapper/rapist/potential-
murderer can be played up as "self assurance" in women (or that
such scenerios could *possibly* constitute anyone's idea of
"typical female fantasies.")
Films involving rape have the potential/likelihood of being
exploitive unless the subject is dealt with in a sensitive
manner. From everything that's been said so far by the
people who have actually seen the film, I find it difficult
to believe that this particular treatment of the subject is
within *light years* of being realistic or sensitive in any way.
If this film *is* exploitive about rape, it wouldn't be the
first, and I don't really care about it that much.
I'm just not buying into the idea that there is some kind of
positive image (of self-assurance in women) being portrayed
in this film, based on what I've read here so far.
|
| 787.26 | | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Fri Sep 15 1989 16:40 | 5 |
| Re .21
If there's one thing we *all* know, living in this society, it's
what fantasies males have. TV, movies, corner drugstore magazine
racks -- I mean, where can you go without knowing this?!
|
| 787.27 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Sama budu polevat' | Fri Sep 15 1989 16:41 | 6 |
| I agree, Suzanne, it's *very* unlikely that it's meant to be for
women...my only argument was against relying on someone's (Beth's in
this case) descriptive powers while at the same time discounting her
interpretive powers. Doesn't that seem as odd t'you as it does to me?
=maggie
|
| 787.28 | | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Sep 15 1989 17:00 | 29 |
| RE: .23
> What do *you* know about what fantasies males have?
What I'm referring to is the "male fantasy involving rape" that
is a predominant theme of hard core (and some soft) porn.
> I'm sure you know that not all fantasies are sexual in nature.
What does that have to do with this discussion, pray tell?
> I find it curious that you felt it necessary to preface the
> word "fantasy" with the phrase "soft porn".
I was commenting on what the descriptions of the movie *sound*
like to me, which is not a curious phenomenon at all (for someone
who is commenting on what someone has *said* here.)
> It does tend to slant the meaning somewhat. I'm wondering if
> you accidentally used it.
A predominant theme of hard core porn involves rape scenerios.
Soft porn often employs similar themes (with less visible flesh
and organs.)
If the film is exploitive about rape, I'd probably consider it to
be porn (of one degree or another.)
I certainly wouldn't rate it a "romantic comedy." Would you?
|
| 787.29 | In my non-politically-correct opinion... | VALKYR::RUST | | Fri Sep 15 1989 17:31 | 34 |
| Re .25: OK, what _could_ she have done that would have indicated
self-assurance to you? I'm curious... I can think of several other
courses of action she could have taken, but I can't see why the one she
did take is any less valid as an attempt to maintain a little control.
As for fantasies, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT the idea that one could conquer a
much stronger, hostile, potentially lethal being by "seducing" him
(whether done emotionally or physically) is very much a fantasy. On one
side, it's a "thrill of taming the beast" fantasy; on the other, it's a
"very unlikely to happen in real life" fantasy. As it happens, a goodly
proportion of *my* favorite fantasies had to do with the heroine (not
me, oddly enough - some pale beauty with long red hair or some such)
being carried off or captured by some
handsome-prince/roving-gypsy/pirate type, with assorted rough sexual
encounters occurring (I tended to favor the Really Innocent Girl as
heroine in my naive youth, wherein she would simply put up meekly with
everything he did) until True Luv conquered all. (I know, it's pretty
repulsive; I do a little better with my fantasies nowadays!)
As it happens, the movie in question does NOT meet my criteria for
fantasy in itself, but with a little tweaking of character motivations
it could; I simply think that it's as closely related to female fantasy
possibilities as it is to male ones, that's all.
My interpretive powers are definitely open to question, as I've learned
that I don't see things the way many other people do (which is one of
the reasons I work for DEC!), and especially the way other women do.
It's quite possible that we could all sit down and watch the wretched
film and still be completely at loggerheads about What It All Means.
Still, I want to thank Ms. Ciccolini for inducing me to think more
deeply about the movie than is my wont; I wouldn't want to go analyzing
every flick I see, but it's a useful exercise now and then!
-b
|
| 787.30 | It's the oldest and worst stereotype ever contrived about women... | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Sep 15 1989 18:23 | 38 |
| RE: .29
> Re .25: OK, what _could_ she have done that would have indicated
> self-assurance to you? I'm curious...
Let me ask you this...
What could a *man* in that situation do that would indicate
self-assurance to *you*?
If an imprisoned male was in danger of being gang-raped and decided
to become sexually aggressive to the main rapist (as a way to save
himself from being raped by countless other men,) would you regard
him as some sort of strong, heroic individual (filled with self-
assurance)?
What kind of control would you consider this man to have over the
main rapist? Is it the kind of control that most people would
admire?
> I can think of several other courses of action she could have taken,
So can I. She could have refused to appear in a film that exploits
women. (That would be my first choice. :))
> but I can't see why the one she did take is any less valid as an
> attempt to maintain a little control.
I'll answer this part seriously.
What kind of dignity is there for a woman to be portrayed as being
the physical property of others (or the prisoner of others) with ZERO
autonomy of her own (with her only "weapon" being that she is able to
deceive others by selling her sexual favors as a way to manipulate
men into allowing her to live)?
Where is the dignity in only having the power to EMBRACE the horror
of rape and imprisonment (rather than being able to STOP it)?
|
| 787.31 | notesfiles - a multi-media event | ULTRA::ZURKO | The quality of mercy is not strained | Fri Sep 15 1989 18:40 | 3 |
| What a great idea! Can we rent the film? I can supply the VCR (and maybe some
pop-corn). Unfortunately, poor Suzanne will have to organize a CO showing...
Mez
|
| 787.32 | | VALKYR::RUST | | Fri Sep 15 1989 19:27 | 26 |
| Re .30, and the male-gang-rape scenario:
If he _chose_ that course of action (as opposed to panicking and
grasping at the first potential straw - so to speak), then yes, I would
find him self-assured. It isn't the activity that indicates
self-assurance so much as the reason for choosing it - or, for that
matter, the idea that one *can* choose. That is why I felt that the
character in the film possessed some control, some assurance, and so
forth; she wasn't reacting that way just because "that's the way women
react". (IMHO, etc.)
Admittedly, I'd _like_ to think that if I were in such a perilous
situation I would face it stoically, never giving so much as a hint
that I was even condescending to notice what was happening, much less
getting any pleasure out of it. (Even better, I would simply unleash my
wrath and blow the bastards away, but it ain't too likely.)
However, I know perfectly well that if my life was on the line I might
very well choose to play-act the cowering, non-threatening type, or
possibly even try to play up to the guy, if I thought it gave me better
odds of getting through alive. (And, to be honest, I might simply fall
apart; we never know what we'll do until tested. What I hope I could do
then would be to remind myself that sometimes events _are_ beyond our
control, pull myself together, and get on with life.)
-b
|
| 787.33 | | COORS::M_VALENZA | Nothing happens, twice. | Fri Sep 15 1989 21:57 | 7 |
| What kind of things do men fantasize about?
Well, in my favorite sexual fantasies there is usually whipped cream, a
garden spade, two bologna sandwiches, a St. Louis telephone directory,
and a fire extinguisher. But then, who doesn't have that fantasy?
-- Mike
|
| 787.34 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Fri Sep 15 1989 23:12 | 7 |
| re: .33
Geez, Mike, I always thought you were a little odd, but after reading
that I'm convinced you're really twisted. I mean, like, whipped
cream??!! That's mondo bizzaro, dude!
Steve
|
| 787.35 | | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Sun Sep 17 1989 21:17 | 6 |
| re: .33
You forgot the duct tape and the battery-powered can opener....
-Jody
|
| 787.36 | ;-) | CSC32::M_VALENZA | Are you a mod or a rocker? | Mon Sep 18 1989 00:50 | 4 |
| Twisted? Yes. Mondo Bizarro? Naturally! But the real question is:
am I a nerd?
-- Mike
|
| 787.38 | | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Thu Sep 21 1989 20:01 | 34 |
| Alan, as Dorian and Suzanne have answered, just to live in this
society is to know practically *everything* about male sexual fantasy.
Think about it. Female sexual fantasy, on the other hand, is hardly
allowed, much less celebrated on billboards, movies, cartoons,
commercials, magazines, sporting events, ad nauseum. And on a
personal level, men themselves are usually not very shy about
communicating their ideas to their women. Nothing wrong with that,
but don't think for a minute that women don't know much about male
fantasy. That's what we're told and sold every day of our lives.
Beth, I have to agree with Suzanne that it's pretty pathetic if
her only power lay, (no pun intended), in her ability to embrace
the horror rather than prevent it. "Taming the beast" would not
be my fantasy or my MO - killing him would. Or at least rendering
him a very unhappy eunuch before I fled.
Was she chained? Restrained in any way? If she was the personal
property of the head honcho, didn't she have an opportunity for a
swift kick where it counts? (The instep, of course! ;-) )
Didn't these robbers have any weapons? Was she ever near enough
to the cache? Or was she too "feminine" to be so "violent"?
Meeting agression with agression, (when you can), is my idea of
self-assurance. If she wasn't bound and locked up, then the writer
who chose to make her react with sexiness rather than with anger
was writing for male fantasy, plain and simple. But then many men
seem to have a hard time dealing with anger in a woman. We're
supposed to smile our way through life and only slip out of trouble
if we can do it *nicely*. That's what made the movie Extremities
so compelling. She didn't whimper either. She reacted more like
a normal human being would to such an outrage. And she didn't even
have to die in the end for not being nice.
Yeah, Mez, let's screen this flick. I always like a good laugh.
|
| 787.39 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | The quality of mercy is not strained | Thu Sep 21 1989 20:12 | 9 |
| Extremities, On-Broadway, was _extremely_ powerful. Believe it or not, the
movie pandered much more to the movie-industry's standards of taste (read
between those lines :-) than the production. If you ever get a chance, go for
it.
It reminds me of how I felt when I saw Model Mugging. I heard a bit on MM on
NPR, and I started _sobbing_. What _is_ it that is so darn compelling about a
woman fighting back?
Mez
|
| 787.40 | what do you mean by male fantasy? | VIA::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Thu Sep 21 1989 21:02 | 34 |
| RE: .-2
By the way, when you say male fantasy, what do you mean?
When I see this term, I think of the "traditional" views of male
sexuality that have been cultivated through the ages. Needless to
say, many males are struggling with what we have been taught and
conditioned to accept in our lives and are looking for a better way to
express ourselves sexually. I don't associate male fantasy with any
inherent property of being a man but with a cultural mythology that
has been built up over years...
We could get into the details of what this mythology is but I assume
most people are familiar with it. I think that a lot of men take it
for granted unfornunatley as the "truth" and the way things are.
Some examples of the myth are:
o The man has to perform for his partner (and it is a
competitive/judgment thing like the rest of a man's life is supposed
to be.)
o The man must orchestrate the sexual act.
o All sex should lead to the traditional sex act.
.
.
.
Anyways, we are fed this stuff from very early on and it takes a while
to unravel and it and figure it out.
john
|
| 787.41 | Ebel Sisgert, Part <n> | DDIF::RUST | | Thu Sep 21 1989 21:58 | 59 |
| Re .38: OK, OK. I can most heartily agree that, if a story must involve
an attempted rape, my idea of the perfect reaction from the woman would
be a swift, sure, and permanent cancellation of the rapist. (This
wouldn't be realistic, but it's what I'd like.) Even more ideally,
stories never would involve rape; the very concept would simply
disappear. (So much for ideals.)
However, what I keep hearing from you is that fighting back is the only
possible "self-assured" solution - even if the odds are overwhelming,
even if the result is a brutal beating in addition to the rape, even if
the result is death. (That may not be what you meant, but it's what I
hear.) With that, I can't agree; under the circumstances, her choice
seemed like a reasonable one to me.
> Was she chained? Restrained in any way? If she was the personal
> property of the head honcho, didn't she have an opportunity for a
> swift kick where it counts? (The instep, of course! ;-) )
> Didn't these robbers have any weapons? Was she ever near enough
> to the cache? Or was she too "feminine" to be so "violent"?
Not chained, but outnumbered (by maybe eight men, and two or three
women); they had taken over a small keep, and she wouldn't have been
able to get the gate open by herself without attracting attention. We
had already had a graphic indication of what happened to people who
tried jumping from the battlements, so escape was... limited. She
_could_ have gone for a knife (I don't remember whether she tried or
not), but would have been overpowered and/or hunted down - and of
course the chase-the-victim scene is very much a male-fantasy icon,
isn't it?
> Meeting agression with agression, (when you can), is my idea of
> self-assurance. If she wasn't bound and locked up, then the writer
> who chose to make her react with sexiness rather than with anger
> was writing for male fantasy, plain and simple. But then many men
> seem to have a hard time dealing with anger in a woman. We're
> supposed to smile our way through life and only slip out of trouble
> if we can do it *nicely*. That's what made the movie Extremities
> so compelling. She didn't whimper either. She reacted more like
> a normal human being would to such an outrage. And she didn't even
> have to die in the end for not being nice.
But... but... -I'm so confused!- Here all this time I've been trying to
convey that she _did_ fight back, using the means available, and
eventually succeeded in contributing to the destruction of the entire
band - and obtaining her own freedom. (And believe me, she didn't do it
"nicely".)
I certainly won't argue that one couldn't find a number of archtypical
male-fantasy objects in the film, but I'd like to point out that
someone who's looking for them can find <pick your orientation>-fantasy
objects in just about anything. And, as the recent string of replies
indicates, the weirdest things can stimulate some people's fantasies!
(Did anybody mention artichoke hearts? Mmmmm...)
This has all been very interesting, but I think the next time I try
reviewing a movie in here it'll be something safe, like "Porkys" - in
which I could find nothing at all worth defending! ;-)
-b
|
| 787.42 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Sep 21 1989 23:22 | 64 |
| Re: .30
>would you regard him as some sort of strong, heroic individual (filled
>with self-assurance)?
Strong? Yes. It takes a strong person not to crumble under such
circumstances. Being able to think rationally, to plan and execute a
strategy, shows an ability to control fear.
Heroic? I don't know, depends on what you mean by heroic. If you mean
something like "noble" well, it depends on the person. Someone who's
not very noble can still be very strong.
Self-assured? Certainly. You have to believe in yourself if you think
you can pull off such a plan.
>What kind of control would you consider this man to have over the
>main rapist?
The captive has control over the main rapist in that he causes the main
rapist to abandon his original intentions and instead proceed in a
manner that, while not entirely satisfactory to the captive, is at
least better than the originally planned outcome.
>ZERO autonomy of her own (with her only "weapon" being that she is
>able to deceive others by selling her sexual favors as a way to
>manipulate men into allowing her to live)?
ZERO? To me, autonomy means the ability to implement one's own
choices. Obviously, she didn't have complete autonomy. However, she
did have limited autonomy and she used it. Unless she was completely
passive, she exercised a degree of autonomy.
>Where is the dignity in only having the power to EMBRACE the horror of
>rape and imprisonment (rather than being able to STOP it)?
Well, I don't see that she could have stopped it. However, she
alleviated it by limiting the damage to herself. As far as dignity
goes, I think it's more inherent to a person than to a situation. I
suspect that you reject the concept of the rape so thoroughly that
you're dealing with this in an all-or-nothing way -- since you can't
accept a part of the situation, you can't accept any of it.
The proof of the strategy is in the results. If the head honcho was
embarassed, then the captive was in control of the situation. If the
movie was simply pandering to male fantasies, then the head honcho
would not be embarassed, but rather gratified. I'm actually rather
impressed by someone who does the unexpected; I admire creative
problem-solving. (Assuming, of course, that it was a problem-solving
technique, and I've seen enough of Beth's notes in the MOVIES notes
conference to have respect for her judgement.)
Re: how she should have reacted
Well, I admit I've created a number of female characters and many of
them are capable of physically defending themselves (what a novel
concept). However, I recognize that this is hardly the norm. Unless
we're going to have an unrealistic heroine (oh, please, not that),
physical retaliation isn't much of an option, especially if she then
has to fight free of the remaining eight men. From what I've read,
it's actually fairly difficult to kick a man "where it counts" because
they tend to be rather protective of that portion of their anatomy.
That's why I've seen women advised to aim for the nose rather than the
groin in such situations.
|
| 787.43 | Some comments after bumping into the movie on cable... | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Sep 22 1989 06:49 | 40 |
| Interesting enough, I did accidently "stumble on" the movie on
cable a couple of nights ago.
My son said he had seen it some years ago (when it first made the
cable rounds, I guess.)
At this point, I think we need to make a distinction between *real*
rape victims, and *media (movie, in this case) portrayals* of rape
victims.
In the case of a real rape victim, I would never even *consider*
questioning or judging anything that a rape victim would do to save
her/his own life (as long as it didn't hurt any other innocent
person.)
As for questioning how rape situations are portrayed (such as in
this movie,) I did not think that the female character showed
what I would consider to be "self-assurance" (in any sort of
positive sense of the word) *at all*. I found the entire movie
rather distasteful.
Thinking that I might have been biased against the movie (based
on the discussion that took place here prior to my seeing it,)
I asked my son what *he* thought of the female character (without
telling him what we'd talked about here,) and his impressions of
the woman were overwhelmingly negative (except for her looks.)
He said that she forsaked her principles to save her neck. When
I asked him if that was necessarily bad (for a movie character,)
he said that a person has to *live* with his or her actions, even
in the face of danger, and he thought that the woman's character
behaved dishonorably, and his impression of her was not positive.
Again, we're talking about a portrayal here, which should be
considered differently than a real rape (since the woman's actions
are being performed in accordance to what some writer in a non-
rape situation has put down on paper as a story to be sold.)
I didn't care for this portrayal, and I would have a *very* hard
time believing that it was intended to be a fantasy for women.
|
| 787.44 | | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Sep 22 1989 07:40 | 9 |
| P.S. One important point in the movie that I don't think anyone has
brought up here (that I can recall) is the fact that toward the end
of the film, the "main outlaw" (or whatever) realizes that the female
character has been faking about her feelings for him, and he damn
near kills her.
Somehow, I feel certain that Rape Seminars advise potential victims
to exercise extreme caution when attempting to play games or lie to
their attackers (because of that very possible consequence.)
|
| 787.45 | | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Fri Sep 22 1989 12:30 | 47 |
| RE: 787.40
>By the way, when you say male fantasy, what do you mean?
>I don't associate male fantasy with any inherent property of being
>a man but with a cultural mythology that has been built up over years...
> I think that a lot of men take it for granted unfornunatley as the
>"truth" and the way things are.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with fantasy, be it a male or a female
doing the fantasizing. But your last statement is what makes the
"traditional" male fantasies so repugnant - they are indeed myth and
have little to do with what women really are. And when they co-exist
with traditional societal denial of real female sexuality it's even more
exasperating to (many) women. Men are allowed their myths; they are
offerred their myths at every turn. Society even attempts to humiliate
men who *don't* buy into the myths. I bet many men buy skin mags just
to display their "maleness" for other people. That's certainly true of
men who hoot, whistle and holler at women on the street. They don't do
it when alone, just when other men are around. It's a traditional male
rite-of-passage to begin to appraise women in terms of hair, shoes, body
parts, helplessness, emptiness, etc, than as whole human beings with desires
of their own. I say let's all have myths or let's all deal with reality.
It's the imbalance that's dangerous. Whatever we choose as a society, it
should apply to everyone.
Then when people, (because women are also held to the myths of what women
are supposed to be, too!), see movies such as the one in question, they will
easily recognize the myth rather than assume it's just reality. But to
reiterate your statement, "... a lot of men [people] take it for granted
unfortunately as the "truth" and the way things are. Men get a kick out of
the myth and women get depresed assuming they are one of the few who are
"different".
And someone here said that fighting back, or physical retaliation is "un-
realistic". I believe a lot of the reason behind it seeming unrealistic
has to do with the myths we have internalized about women. Let the rapist
take a woman's infant and begin to abuse *it* and we'll see how "unrealistic"
it is for a woman to freak and fight back without a second's hesitation.
Would you kill to protect your child? Are you worth any less? We have been
brainwashed into believing we are worth less than any other kind of human.
Hense the admonitions to "stop and think" - the fear that is put into us if
we protest or fight back about rape. No one would tell a woman to stop and
think before she protected her child's life. But herself - well...
|
| 787.46 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Sep 22 1989 16:00 | 16 |
| Re: .45
>And someone here said that fighting back, or physical retaliation is
>"un-realistic".
You've taken a statement made about a very specific situation (one
woman captured by nine men) and made it into a very general statement.
I'm not stupid enough to make such an open-ended statement. As far as
the movie goes, I think it would have been extremely unrealistic to
show the captive successfully extricating herself by physical
retaliation. Certainly she could have fought back; however, I've heard
that it's considered unwise in such situations.
Certainly women are capable of physically retaliating insofar as
they're capable of free movement. But *successful* physical
retaliation is highly unlikely in most cases.
|
| 787.47 | I LOVE lively conversation! | GEMVAX::CICCOLINI | | Fri Sep 22 1989 17:37 | 59 |
| re: ACESMK::CHELSEA
>I'm not stupid enough to make such an open-ended statement.
I'm glad you're not as stupid as I am. I did assume the statement
I was responding to was a general one. I apologize for my stupidity
and thank you for pointing it out. Too many stupid people and this
file would collapse. Hopefully, it can weather my stupidity.
Now what do we label name calling? Do you also do a sing-song rendition
of nyah-nyah? Also, you write a lot in this file. You're challenging
me to find an "open-ended" statement written by you and I'll bet I could.
Or do you have some esoteric definition of "open-ended"? (See the topic
on "Safe Place" re: smokescreen challenges).
>As far as the movie goes, I think it would have been extremely
>unrealistic to show the captive successfully extricating herself by
>physical retaliation.
Again, I admit that I was stupid enough to actually believe that there
was a writer involved in how "the movie goes" and that the writer, and
not the character, was responsible for the ridiculous situation. Another
apology.
>Certainly she could have fought back;
(which is it? "extremely unrealistic" or "she could have"?)
But fighting back doesn't make for good cinema for the boys - the ones
whom the media believes pays for things - the reason for the movie, most
movies, in the first place.
>however, I've heard that it's considered unwise in such situations.
Yes, I agree we've been told it's unwise. Didn't I say that? Let
me ask you this - if it were your child, would you watch and say,
"Hmmm, I've heard that it's considered unwise to fight back"?
If you would die fighting to protect your child, (and maybe my stupity
makes me think you would, but I do think so), why does it seem to me
that you think a woman's self is less worth fighting for? Notice the
disclaimer, "seem to me". Please be clear that I will not say you *do*
think a woman's self *is* less worth fighting for, for fear of another
de-railing challenge.
>But *successful* physical retaliation is highly unlikely in most cases.
"Challenge an axiom!" Einstein said that. Do you know who he is? A
sense of self worth, in most cases, prevents situations from deteriorating
to a contest of strength. Most rape situations do not begin with strange
men jumping from bushes, (or capturing fair maidens), with weapons. They
begin with words, beliefs and body language.
But you may be on to one thing - you'd better believe in your soul that
you have the right, the will and the ability to be *demonstrably* outraged
by this treatment otherwise you *will* be killed as you stamp your tiny feet
and pound on his big, hairy chest, pleading with your agressor, "Oh, you
BRUTE!" (Olive Oyl to Bluto.)
|
| 787.48 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Sep 22 1989 18:17 | 59 |
| Re: .47
>I apologize for my stupidity and thank you for pointing it out.
Well, then, you're thanking me for something I never intended to do. I
pointed out that you took a statement from a specific context and made
it a general statement. I did not say you were stupid (I'm not stupid
enough to do that, either); all I said was that *I* was not stupid.
There are plenty of non-stupid reasons for interpreting my statement as
a general one. For some reason, you've chosen to react to what I've
said in what looks like a highly defensive manner. Since I'm not
trying to be offensive, I'm puzzled. I don't know why you're so
willing to believe that I'm hostile toward you.
>that there was a writer involved in how "the movie goes" and that the
>writer, and not the character, was responsible for the ridiculous
>situation.
Which ridiculous situation? I'm missing how this applies to realism or
the lack thereof.
>"extremely unrealistic" or "she could have"
She could have fought back. That is well within the realm of
possibilities. That she could have fought back SUCCESSFULLY is
extremely unrealistic, given her situation (a captive of nine men).
That's the key word -- SUCCESSFULLY. That's what distinguishes the
case of what is possible from the case of what is likely. That's why
I've been careful to use it where it applies.
>the ones whom the media believes pays for things
From what I understand of advertising and market strategies, the media
is well aware of the spending power of women.
>if it were your child, would you watch and say, "Hmmm, I've heard that
>it's considered unwise to fight back"?
My "such situations" refers to the situation of the captive, but that
doesn't really matter. I really have no idea how I'd react to violence
against me or a child. Of course, I can't imagine myself having a
child, being completely uninterested at this point, so that might have
something to do with it.
>Einstein said that. Do you know who he is?
If you refer to Albert, yes. Why do think I might not know who he is?
>you'd better believe in your soul that you have the right, the will and
>the ability to be *demonstrably* outraged by this treatment
My pragmatic side wonders if the potential benefits of demonstrating
outrage outweigh the potential costs. I'm not sure I'd be more
concerned about making a statement than about minimizing the damage to
myself. But, as I said, I really have no idea how I'd react. I
suspect much would depend on my mood of the moment. But if I were in a
position of needing to defend myself, then a strong confidence in
myself would certainly be a significant contribution to my ability to
successfully defend myself.
|
| 787.49 | Realistic without fantasies | CECV03::LUEBKERT | | Fri Sep 22 1989 23:55 | 44 |
| I saw part of this movie, the middle, some time ago. I only saw
it from the time they were in the house and she began to work on
the leader to some point after he had intervened to get his men
away. I left early, because I didn't like the subject, but then
there are very few movies that I believe have merit and are worth
looking at. Most movies are made for and seen by children. My
wife did watch the whole thing and felt that it was realistic.
I did find everything I saw to be quite realistic, and I was impressed
by her taking considerable control of the situation. I did not
feel that she had decided to allow him to have sex with her, but
rather that she was delaying and playing the situation for time.
In fact, her strategy saved her from attack by the others.
Regarding fantasies, I think it is as likely to be a female fantasy
as it is male. I guess that a male who was a rapist or potential
rapist might have liked the parts of it although overall it would
probably not be satisfactory because she kept manipulating away
from harm. On the other hand, a woman who fantisizes about being
raped might like part of it, but again not like how it developes.
Since I think the above two classifications are small minorities,
and their needs probably weren't properly addressed, then the movie
would be a collosal failure if addressed to them.
Speaking for myself, I identified with the woman and solving her
problem. I believe most people, of either sex, would identify with
her. This kind of movie, with one good guy, is intended to have
this reaction as I recall from some course long ago. So it's perfectly
natural and expected for the male viewers to identify with the woman
as much as it is for the female viewers. So I just saw the situation
from her point of view, no sex fantasies. When I see a movie with
two heros, one male and one female, I generally see much of the
situation from his eyes, but I probably will view at least some
of the situation from her eyes. Now when the single hero is a male,
it's obvious that I have but one point of view. But the question
remains for those of you who are female, how do you see such movies?
My guess is that you see it just as I do except for identifying
more with the female in the two heros senario.
I seldom watch anything other than documentaries and comedies, and
then I prefer the Walt Disney kind. I've wanted to get rid of the
TV for a long time, but my wife wont give it up.
Bud
|
| 787.50 | | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | When in Punt, doubt | Sat Sep 23 1989 07:23 | 24 |
| 787.51 | | DDIF::RUST | | Sun Sep 24 1989 21:00 | 42 |
| Re .43 "distasteful" - yep, that's the movie, all right. ;-) (I
thought they should have subtitled it "Life in the Middle Ages: Nasty,
Brutish and Short".) As for self-assurance, positive or otherwise, well
- I've already said I didn't particularly admire the character as
portrayed, but I still think she was doing her best to maintain some
control in the situation. If you don't consider that some indication of
self-assurance, I won't press the point any further.
> He said that she forsaked her principles to save her neck. When
> I asked him if that was necessarily bad (for a movie character,)
> he said that a person has to *live* with his or her actions, even
> in the face of danger, and he thought that the woman's character
> behaved dishonorably, and his impression of her was not positive.
Was she portrayed as having any principles? (This is not a rhetorical
question; I honestly didn't get the impression that she had any.)
Re .47: "Lively conversation," eh? I find sarcasm more effective when
used sparingly...
As for the Great Fighting-Back question: (a) Of course women can fight;
I think that those who have been taught to believe they can't have been
handicapped. However, just because it's possible doesn't make it a good
idea in all situations. In the case of the movie in question, it was a
fairly realistic period film, not "Red Sonya," so for a high-born
female to take up arms against overwhelming odds would not have made
sense _in that context_. (Sure, the director could have put it in
anyway. It would have been a very different film; possibly better,
possibly not, but *not* the one which the director did choose to make.
One can certainly debate his motives for doing it this way, but I don't
think he was in any way saying women *can't* or *shouldn't* fight.)
(b) Of course [most] parents would fight to defend their offspring, but
again, it might not always be the best way to _successfully_ defend
them. Not that one is likely to stop and think in a moment of crisis
(and I'm as liable as anyone to simply go berserk and fly at the
perpetrator with teeth and claws), but I can easily imagine situations
where some action other than fighting would stand a much better chance
of saving the children.
-b
|