Gloria Steinem displays the grand sense of humor second wave feminist have been renowned for. That aside, what she does to raise my ire is throw the term "modest proposal" about carelessly.
I'm in a deconstructing mood, so let's unpack all she has to say.
Here's a modest proposal to the young man on the plane from Los Angeles to Seattle who said of the movie that most passengers -- male and female -- voted to watch: "I don't watch chick flicks!"
Way to prop up an anonymous boor (if he even exists) to create your strawperson.
So what exactly is a "chick flick?" I think you and I could probably agree that it has more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they die.
Right, anything 'guys' might like is bad, got it.
I'm not challenging your choice; I'm just questioning the term that encourages it. After all, if you think back to your school days, much of what you were assigned as great literature could have been dismissed as "chick lit." Indeed, the books you read probably only survived because they were written by famous guys.
What do you mean "I'm not challenging your choice"? In the previous paragraph you just implied his taste in film is infantile and full of bloodlust. Why play coy Ms. Steinem? Call him a knuckle dragger, if you think he's a knuckle dragger, after all he's probably too stupid to know that's an insult
Think about it: If Anna Karenina had been written by Leah Tolstoy, or The Scarlet Letter by Nancy Hawthorne, or Madame Bovary by Greta Flaubert, or A Doll's House by Henrietta Ibsen, or The Glass Menagerie by (a female) Tennessee Williams, would they have been hailed as universal? Suppose Shakespeare had really been The Dark Lady some people supposed. I bet most of her plays and all of her sonnets would have been dismissed as some Elizabethan version of ye olde "chick lit," only to be resurrected centuries later by stubborn feminist scholars.
OK, how'd we get from "chick flick" to literature? I guess she forgot we're supposed to discourage emphasizing 'dead white males' in the canon (just another kind of 'prick', after all) of literature studied in school. You can pat yourself on the back for the fact that this frat boy on the plane has likely not studied Hawthorne, Tolstoy, Flaubert, or even Shakespeare.
Indeed, as long men are taken seriously when they write about the female half of the world -- and women aren't taken seriously when writing about themselves much less about men or male affairs -- the list of Great Authors will be more about power than about talent.
Oh, never mind. I can't believe she brought that up. So not only does she use the 'classic' authors to support her disdain for a certain kind of popular art, but she throws out some tired line about how it's impossible for women to be taken seriously by --- who? The Academy? Book Reviews? She's clearly not looked at the curricula taught at most schools in the past 20 years, or else she'd know how baseless that kind of claim is today.
Still, I know this is not your problem. Instead, let me appeal to your self-interest as well as your sense of fairness: If the "chick flick" label helps you to avoid the movies you don't like, why is there no label to guide you to the ones you do like?
Just as there are "novelists" and then "women novelists," there are "movies" and then "chick flicks." Whoever is in power takes over the noun -- and the norm -- while the less powerful get an adjective. Thus, we read about "African American doctors" but not "European American doctors," "Hispanic leaders" but not "Anglo leaders," "gay soldiers" but not "heterosexual soldiers," and so on.
That's also why you're left with only half a guide. As usual, bias punishes everyone. Therefore I propose, as the opposite of "chick flick" and an adjective of your very own, "prick flick." Not only will it serve film critics well, but its variants will add to the literary lexicon. For example, "prick lit" could characterize a lot of fiction, from Philip Roth to Bret Easton Ellis and beyond. "True prick" could guide readers to their preferred non-fiction, from the classics of Freud to the populist works of socio-biologists and even Rush Limbaugh.
Finally we get to her proposal portion of her 'proposal'. Her big idea is to label all masculine leaning work as 'prick flicks' or even 'prick lit'. That'll teach us knuckle draggers! Newsflash, most men are inordinately proud of their pricks, and if we were to be identified by one thing, then we have no problem having that being our main identifier. Men are funny that way, I guess. I should attack the whole Marxist, 'those with power shape the language to disenfranchise the powerless' argument, but seems that's tired, hackneyed, and ridiculous enough to be self-refuting.
Most of all, the simple label "prick flick" could lead you easily and quickly through the thicket of televised, downloaded and theatrical releases to such attractions as:
All the movies that glorify World War II. From classics with John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, those master actors who conveyed heroism without ever leaving the back lot, to Spielberg's "Band of Brothers," in which the hero would rather die than be rescued, Hollywood has probably spent more on making movies about the war than this country spent on fighting it. After all, World War II was the last war in which this country was clearly right. Without frequent exposure to it, how are we to believe we still are?
All the movies that glorify Vietnam, bloody regional wars, and the war on terrorism. These may not be as much fun to watch -- you probably are aware that we aren't the winners here -- but they allow you to enjoy mass mayhem in, say, South Asia or Africa or the Middle East that justifies whatever this country might do.
Now we get to the meat of the matter. This boorish (probable) ex-frat boy on the flight from Los Angeles to Seattle (two hotbeds of hyper-masculine Red State yahoos), is really just lusting for a fight, and has a hard-on for war. Just like our current president (she couldn't even bring herself to type his name, she had a hard enough time typing "John Wayne" and "Ronald Reagan").
All the movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women. These feature chainsaws and house parties for teenage guys, serial killers and sadistic rapists for ordinary male adults, plus cleverly plotted humiliations and deaths of powerful women for the well-educated misogynist.
All the movies that insist female human beings are the only animals on earth that seek out and even enjoy their own pain. From glamorized versions of prostitution to such complex plots as "Boxing Helena," a man's dream of amputating all a rebellious woman's limbs -- and then she falls in love with him -- these provide self-justification and how-to manuals for sadists.
First off, Boxing Helena was eons ago, nobody saw it, fewer liked it, and it was directed and co-written by a woman. Secondly, there are plenty of men upset with the whole 'torture porn' sub genre that has surfaced recently, and there are plenty of women who consume that product, so it's a much more complex picture than the one you'd like to paint. Note the recent failure at the box office of Grindhouse and Hostel II. Captivity looks destined for a crappy weekend as well, despite a controversial ad campaign (which is usually a good thing for a flick).
As you can see, one simple label could guide you through diversity, and help other viewers to practice avoidance.
But if you really think about it, I'm hope-a-holic enough to think you might like to watch a chick flick after all.
Isn't that nice, she's willing to let you decide to see what you want to see, so long as your choice is one that pleases her. Just through a little education and creative labeling you'll come to realize that 300 is an evil instrument designed to aid in the reproduction of our weapons obsessed national deathcult, while a light and cheery confection like Music and Lyrics is a superior work of art in every single way (assuming those were the kinds of films offered up for vote on the plane). You really think that 'no chick flick!' shouting frat boy will be upset when you call his taste in films "Prick Flicks", or his taste in music, "Cock Rock" or his taste in cigars as "Penis-substitutes"? (OK, he may balk at the cigar one).
Women, and especially 2nd wave feminist should be the ones most offended by the current state of 'chick flicks'. Pictures aimed at and marketed towards a primarily female audience are more regressive and beholden to traditional gender roles than even the films of the 30s or 40s. Just look at all those awful underling screws boss pictures of the past decade or so. There's plenty to choose from. Or you have the ever popular cold hearted corporate climber learns the true value of having a vagina when thrust into a child rearing situation subgenre of chick flicks. Those are real progressive. Maybe the guy voicing his dismay at the plane choosing a chick flick, wasn't dismayed at a female-centric story, rather he was dismayed at the likelihood that the film chosen was another in a long line of Hollywood films that portray careerism in women negatively, neediness as a virtue, rescue through relationship, and casts the usual 20 something actress with an actor on the wrong side of 40. It may well have been an excess of feminism that drove that brave man to exhort as he did on the plane, that or he's a knuckedragging frat-boy, either way's cool with me.
Besides, who goes on a plane without a laptop or their own dvd player, anyway?
No comments:
Post a Comment