Ballet & feminism

[Balletwannabe]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dancemagazine.com/ashley-bouder-2556477610.amp.html

[pherank]

5 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dancemagazine.com/ashley-bouder-2556477610.amp.html

Thanks for this link - definitely worth a look. It's a very personal take on the ballet company environment, and that makes it an engaging read. It was brave to take on Ratmansky's ballet themes and social media statements, and mature to recognize that all individuals exhibit contradictions in their personalities and work.

Bouder does something here that most writers forget all about: she defines the term central to her argument.

"Feminism is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes"

While reading this, I was reminded yet again how terminology runs our lives and gets us into (often unintended) trouble. The term "feminism" can't help but denote the existence of a "masculinism" as its opposite/opponent (most people would say "patriarchy"). And the terms and their referents form a dichotomy that makes no allowance for in-between or grayscale states. And that's not very lifelike at all. But Bouder defines 'feminism' as being a theory of "the political, economic and social equality of the sexes", and so tries to be much more inclusive. I can guarantee that so-called opponents of feminism don't define the term feminism in the same manner, and they are very much hung up on the female-centric implications of the term. The same kind of problem arises around the slogan, "Black lives matter". People who are bothered by this phrase like to come back with, "ALL lives matter", which also happens to be an easy way of avoiding the issue. I always thought the slogan should have been:

"Black lives matter too."

That alters and makes more specific the implications of the phrase. In that case, less vague is better. I'm personally looking for a more inclusive term to supersede ones like 'feminism' and 'patriarchy/matriarchy'.

I don't know if this would be considered off-topic, but I would also recommend Molly Ringwald's New Yorker article, What About “The Breakfast Club”?
Revisiting the movies of my youth in the age of #MeToo.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/what-about-the-breakfast-club-molly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink

It's an interesting read, but, Ringwald fails to do what Bouder got right - she doesn't define terms, and is full of assumptions about what is right and wrong, what is ugly or beautiful, etc. Her assumptions/beliefs are probably part of the reason why she has a difficult time understanding how artwork can contain negative or violent content and still provide the audience with catharsis, a sense of well being, or inspiration, or even an "ah hah!" moment of enlightenment. I get the feeling that Ringwald tends to take film content very literally, and misses many of the overt implications. But, I could be wrong.  ;)

[Quiggin]

I thought it was a very good essay too. And Bouder gave Ratmansky credit for many good things.

I don't know why feminism causes so much angst and tip-toeing around. It seems simply an overdue balancing of accounts. Especially when you look at what's been accepted as the norm until only recently, the things everyone let slide, like the terrible misogeny of Norman Mailer and John Updike or elements of the photography of Daido Moriyama and Gary Winogrand, where women are presented simply as sexual objects or mirrors in the urban landscapes, always beckoning back. Not so many gray areas there.

I disagree about "Black Lives Matter, too" That neuters the empowering message. It sort of says get in the back of the mattering line.

[pherank]

34 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

I thought it was a very good essay too. And Bouder gave Ratmansky credit for many good things.

I don't know why feminism causes so much angst and tip-toeing around. It seems simply an overdue balancing of accounts. Especially when you look at what's been accepted as the norm until only recently, the things everyone let slide, like the terrible misogeny of Norman Mailer and John Updike or elements of the photography of Daido Moriyama and Gary Winogrand, where women are presented simply as sexual objects or mirrors in the urban landscapes, always beckoning back. Not so many gray areas there.

I disagree about "Black Lives Matter, too" That neuters the empowering message. It sort of says get in the back of the mattering line.

So many implications, so little time.  ;)
I read it differently - if Black lives matter too (as well) then there must be an argument being put forward that something matters, and it isn't Black lives. Western societies often make lofty pronouncements and grand assumptions, but both individuals and groups of people can, and do, fall through the cracks, or are purposefully left out of these schemes. Reminding people that Black lives matter certainly should make it clear that there is an "overdue balancing of accounts", but many non-Blacks get defensive and just wonder why the message doesn't include them. Those are insecure people (as most humans are). And funnily enough, they don't feel empowered by society either - the "Trump Nation" is full up with people who actually feel that they have been left behind, and that minorities are getting more help in life than they are. That may sound ignorant or crazy to some, but those are real feelings even if they are sometimes based on mistaken notions. And then there are the cases in which deserving people are shut out of opportunities because of quotas that needed to be filled (by law). If you're the one getting left out, the supposed fairness of the situation is going to be lost on you.

I don't blame the people who try to make a positive difference (within their beliefs) and make mistakes, or fail entirely. They made the effort in life. It's the people who purposefully make someone else's life more difficult, or virtually impossible, that are the issue for me.

 

[sandik]

On 4/10/2018 at 4:10 PM, pherank said:

I don't know if this would be considered off-topic, but I would also recommend Molly Ringwald's New Yorker article, What About “The Breakfast Club”?
Revisiting the movies of my youth in the age of #MeToo.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/what-about-the-breakfast-club-molly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink

It's an interesting read, but, Ringwald fails to do what Bouder got right - she doesn't define terms, and is full of assumptions about what is right and wrong, what is ugly or beautiful, etc. Her assumptions/beliefs are probably part of the reason why she has a difficult time understanding how artwork can contain negative or violent content and still provide the audience with catharsis, a sense of well being, or inspiration, or even an "ah hah!" moment of enlightenment. I get the feeling that Ringwald tends to take film content very literally, and misses many of the overt implications. But, I could be wrong.  ;)

I think part of the twist for Ringwald is that she was pretty much the same age as the teenagers she portrayed on screen when she made those films, and her relationship with the director John Hughes couldn't help but be affected by that.  It seems to me she's trying to do what several other writers have been attempting  (including Clare Dederer, dealing with more extreme examples here) -- find a way to understand how beautiful or exciting or challenging art can come from compromised circumstances.  Many of us have been grappling with this challenge here on BA this year, and likely we will all still be working on this as we go forward.

[Vs1]

On 4/10/2018 at 11:33 PM, pherank said:

So many implications, so little time.  ;)
I read it differently - if Black lives matter too (as well) then there must be an argument being put forward that something matters, and it isn't Black lives. Western societies often make lofty pronouncements and grand assumptions, but both individuals and groups of people can, and do, fall through the cracks, or are purposefully left out of these schemes. Reminding people that Black lives matter certainly should make it clear that there is an "overdue balancing of accounts", but many non-Blacks get defensive and just wonder why the message doesn't include them. Those are insecure people (as most humans are). And funnily enough, they don't feel empowered by society either - the "Trump Nation" is full up with people who actually feel that they have been left behind, and that minorities are getting more help in life than they are. That may sound ignorant or crazy to some, but those are real feelings even if they are sometimes based on mistaken notions. And then there are the cases in which deserving people are shut out of opportunities because of quotas that needed to be filled (by law). If you're the one getting left out, the supposed fairness of the situation is going to be lost on you.

I don't blame the people who try to make a positive difference (within their beliefs) and make mistakes, or fail entirely. They made the effort in life. It's the people who purposefully make someone else's life more difficult, or virtually impossible, that are the issue for me.

 

Born to an oppressed family, who suffered  from poverty, illness, and discrimination, I still can't see why one would lump together all white males, many of whom were born of immigrants who scrubbed floors to put food on the table.  The recent land confiscation from whites who paid for land and helped blacks in Africa by providing treatment, money, marching, political aid, and constitutional and legal drafting seems unfairly punitive.  Similarly, most of us did not own slaves, live here during that period, or advocate for it.  We were servants and basically still are.   As for feminism, I wonder if any victim will be believed after media claims about rampant pervasive serially predatory behavior.

 

As for making life purposely more difficult, I would love to meet someone who didn't. We can start with medical receptionists and work our way up.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Vs1
mistake

[sandik]

30 minutes ago, Vs1 said:

As for making life purposely more difficult, I would love to meet someone who didn't. We can start with medical receptionists and work our way up.

I think we probably disagree on some of the other issues you discussed, but I wanted to thank you for the giggle here. 

[pherank]

3 hours ago, Vs1 said:

Born to an oppressed family, who suffered  from poverty, illness, and discrimination, I still can't see why one would lump together all white males, many of whom were born of immigrants who scrubbed floors to put food on the table.  The recent land confiscation from whites who paid for land and helped blacks in Africa by providing treatment, money, marching, political aid, and constitutional and legal drafting seems unfairly punitive.  Similarly, most of us did not own slaves, live here during that period, or advocate for it.  We were servants and basically still are.   As for feminism, I wonder if any victim will be believed after media claims about rampant pervasive serially predatory behavior.

As for making life purposely more difficult, I would love to meet someone who didn't. We can start with medical receptionists and work our way up.

I don't know what culture you are referring to in the first paragraph above. The situations will be different in different areas of the world of course.

Truthfully, my interactions with medical receptionists go like this:

MR: Hi.
ME: Hello, I have a 3pm appointment with Dr. ________. [I hand over my medical identification card and my driver's license which has my photo on it]
MR: OK, the co-pay will be $_____ today.
ME: [I pay with a credit card]
MR: You can take a seat in seating area 2 - the nurse will call your name.

Not very exciting and not really aggravating to me. It's the doctors that run the gamut in "bedside manner": I've had good ones that try too hard to be ingratiating and give me too much information. I've had doctors who clearly go through the day robotically keeping to company policies and have nothing much to add or say about my medical condition (or whatever happens to be the reason for the visit). I've had a few doctors who seemed annoyed because my issue was not of interest to them. I've had pompous sounding doctors who spend more time talking than listening,  and I've had doctors who empathized to such a degree that it was a little creepy. Truly, all kinds. But the number of people in all those interactions that were obviously trying to get in a my way and make sure I had a bad experience was very, very small. Most people I meet are aggravating unintentionally - they are simply too focused on their own issues/beliefs/values and don't see how they might be rubbing someone else the wrong way. And if they do notice what has happened, then their mind looks for a way to make it the other person's fault.  ;)

[Vs1]

Just now, pherank said:

I don't know what culture you are referring to in the first paragraph above. The situations will be different in different areas of the world of course.

Truthfully, my interactions with medical receptionists go like this:

MR: Hi.
ME: Hello, I have a 3pm appointment with Dr. ________. [I hand over my medical identification card and my driver's license which has my photo on it]
MR: OK, the co-pay will be $_____ today.
ME: [I pay with a credit card]
MR: You can take a seat in seating area 2 - the nurse will call your name.

Not very exciting and not really aggravating to me. It's the doctors that run the gamut in "bedside manner": I've had good ones that try too hard to be ingratiating and give me too much information. I've had doctors who clearly go through the day robotically keeping to company policies and have nothing much to add or say about my medical condition (or whatever happens to be the reason for the visit). I've had a few doctors who seemed annoyed because my issue was not of interest to them. I've had pompous sounding doctors who spend more time talking than listening,  and I've had doctors who empathized to such a degree that it was a little creepy. Truly, all kinds. But the number of people in all those interactions that were obviously trying to get in a my way and make sure I had a bad experience was very, very small. Most people I meet are aggravating unintentionally - they are simply too focused on their own issues/beliefs/values and don't see how they might be rubbing someone else the wrong way. And if they do notice what has happened, then their mind looks for a way to make it the other person's fault.  ;)

At the risk of being offensively off-topic or offensively nonresponsive, I offer the following explanation of what I meant, which you said you did not comprehend, for editing if required:

Me: I am suffering from immediate condition and work all week, such as (debilitating menstrual condition to end in a week but requiring pain killers, plague like flu needing immediate care, running out of medication for chronic illness, having a dog bite that requires a shot but no stitches, or other immediate need)

Receptionist: I have an opening in 6 months

Me: my condition requires immediate care and immediate medication, and won't exist in six months

Receptionist: I have an appointment on Tuesday at 12

Me: I work and can't make it midday

Receptionist: OK, Wednesday at 1 (ignoring point immediately above)

Me: Same problem. You are open until 7pm (an early night for me but I'll risk leaving early).

Receptionist: I have to call you back (never does)

Me: I need an answer

Receptionist: Send a referral

Me: Brings it by paper, which I did not get in mail (of course) and drove to primary care doctor to retrieve.

Receptionist: Need a fax

Me: That is a piece of paper, which I just gave you

Receptionist: Need it by electronics (which I was never told by referring dr or ins. co or specialist)

Me: Insurance said it was sent

Receptionist: I will not talk to your insurer

Me: If have to leave and go through the rounds again, I will die of embolism, and waste much time.

Receptionist: You wont.

Me: You are not a doctor. My aunt died of this. Embolisms get loose and go to the heart or brain. The doctor has an oath and a legal obligation to treat.

Receptionist: I can't help you.

Alt:

Me, weeks in advance, by email, telephone, letter: I have to cancel

Reception: sends bill for cancellation without 24 hours notice

Me: 3 emails saying I never had notice of your policy  and it does not apply

Reception: No response

Me: 3 emails to remove bill without response

 

Alt:

Medical personnel at all levels:  have an operation and  you will not receive outside bills or have condition

Afterwards: Have condition and bills
Receptionists: There are other causes of the condition (about which I was not told, nor was my husband)

Me: I would not  have had debilitating operation then.

These are examples, not specific conditions, but I am truly happy your experience is different.

 

I don't know what culture you are talking about regarding paragraph 1.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Vs1
error

[Vs1]

Just now, Gnossie said:

Just now, Vs1 said:

   As for feminism, I wonder if any victim will be believed after media claims about rampant pervasive serially predatory behavior.

AMEN TO THIS, AMEN, AMENNNNNNNNN! 👏👏👏👏👏

Well, the parade of recantation has started in Philadelphia, as expected.  I feel badly for all assaulted/injured, and all falsely accused, and all who decide on absurd "solutions".

Edited April 13, 2018 by Vs1
error

[pherank]

50 minutes ago, Vs1 said:

At the risk of being offensively off-topic or offensively nonresponsive, I offer the following explanation of what I meant, which you said you did not comprehend, for editing if required:

Me: I am suffering from immediate condition and work all week, such as (debilitating menstrual condition to end in a week but requiring pain killers, plague like flu needing immediate care, running out of medication for chronic illness, having a dog bite that requires a shot but no stitches, or other immediate need)

Receptionist: I have an opening in 6 months

Me: my condition requires immediate care and immediate medication, and won't exist in six months

Receptionist: I have an appointment on Tuesday at 12

Me: I work and can't make it midday

Receptionist: OK, Wednesday at 1 (ignoring point immediately above)

Me: Same problem. You are open until 7pm (an early night for me but I'll risk leaving early).

Receptionist: I have to call you back (never does)

Me: I need an answer

Receptionist: Send a referral

Me: Brings it by paper, which I did not get in mail (of course) and drove to primary care doctor to retrieve.

Receptionist: Need a fax

Me: That is a piece of paper, which I just gave you

Receptionist: Need it by electronics (which I was never told by referring dr or ins. co or specialist)

Me: Insurance said it was sent

Receptionist: I will not talk to your insurer

Me: If have to leave and go through the rounds again, I will die of embolism, and waste much time.

Receptionist: You wont.

Me: You are not a doctor. My aunt died of this. Embolisms get loose and go to the heart or brain. The doctor has an oath and a legal obligation to treat.

Receptionist: I can't help you.

Alt:

Me, weeks in advance, by email, telephone, letter: I have to cancel

Reception: sends bill for cancellation without 24 hours notice

Me: 3 emails saying I never had notice of your policy  and it does not apply

Reception: No response

Me: 3 emails to remove bill without response

 

Alt:

Medical personnel at all levels:  have an operation and  you will not receive outside bills or have condition

Afterwards: Have condition and bills
Receptionists: There are other causes of the condition (about which I was not told, nor was my husband)

Me: I would not  have had debilitating operation then.

These are examples, not specific conditions, but I am truly happy your experience is different.

 

I don't know what culture you are talking about regarding paragraph 1.

The situation you are describing definitely sounds like a bad one. The way healthcare is set up in my U.S. state makes that kind of situation much less common - unless the citizen simply refuses to sign up with a reputable healthcare service. I can go straight to the Emergency Room of my HMO (healthcare managed organization) or if if that simply isn't possible, then I can go to whatever ER is nearest and my HMO will pay for it in the end. That happened to me a while ago when I needed to be seen at an ER in British Columbia - but my HMO in the U.S. came though for me and payed the bills.

And now, back to Feminism and Ballet - Did anyone happen to read MaCaulay's article Of Women, Men and Ballet in the 21st Century?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/arts/dance/of-women-men-and-ballet-in-the-21st-century.html

"Still, it can be no accident that so many female dance makers came from modern dance rather than ballet. No ballet maker has achieved the revisionist power with which Martha Graham showed women rewriting both history and myth. Could this yet happen? Can anyone, female or male, give new — feminist — meaning to pointwork?"

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by pherank

[Vs1]

Just now, pherank said:

The situation you are describing definitely sounds like a bad one. The way healthcare is set up in my U.S. state makes that kind of situation much less common - unless the citizen simply refuses to sign up with a reputable healthcare service. I can go straight to the Emergency Room of my HMO (healthcare managed organization) or if if that simply isn't possible, then I can go to whatever ER is nearest and my HMO will pay for it in the end. That happened to me a while ago when I needed to be seen at an ER in British Columbia - but my HMO in the U.S. came though for me and payed the bills.

My husband's work has 1 of the 2 (I believe) main hmos offered here. The ins would not preapprove or post-approve ER visits in such conditions (other than the operation).  When abroad, I was told the ins did not cover. I spent a decade in the industry and routine claims were routinely denied in the first instance.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Vs1
error

[Vs1]

Just now, Vs1 said:

Well, the parade of recantation has started in Philadelphia, as expected.  I feel badly for all assaulted/injured, and all falsely accused, and all who decide on absurd "solutions".

I wonder if that was that the strategy. 

[Vs1]

Just now, pherank said:

 

And now, back to Feminism and Ballet - Did anyone happen to read MaCaulay's article Of Women, Men and Ballet in the 21st Century?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/arts/dance/of-women-men-and-ballet-in-the-21st-century.html

"Still, it can be no accident that so many female dance makers came from modern dance rather than ballet. No ballet maker has achieved the revisionist power with which Martha Graham showed women rewriting both history and myth. Could this yet happen? Can anyone, female or male, give new — feminist — meaning to pointwork?"

 

Does history deny oppression/repression and require "rewriting"?  I heard learned/read about tragedy, suffering and oppression my whole life.
And I have read of hero/ines and martyrs, too.

The article is so poorly written in its attempt to hide some of what it is trying state and ignore other important points.  Sure, the slave scene with the Pashas has always disgusted (I have never understood why "Corsaire" is described as a romp or fun).  MacMillan, a male cited in the article without mentioning "Manon", acknowledges and describes our suffering (although vulgarly, perhaps he argues, with prurient intent).  Many of the women (who don't like their roles, no matter what they are, and can't be satisfied), complain either way.  Many of the male choreographers call "BS", in subtle ways, and say they act at the whim of such women.  Is it only women who try to protect the innocent?  Don't men have to hide from the ire of avengers (Willis) or manipulation of women for gain (many ballet characters fit the role), or are they just accusers (of Hermione)?  Then again, is noble Albrecht the true victim of an oppressive society (forget about peasant Giselle's suffering) while Anna K is scorned by her oppressive society rightfully? But, ultimately, isn't this all said on pointe? 

Cassandra can't change anything in Martha's dance, on pointe or not, but wouldn't consequences ensue to others if she did? Well, no matter what is turned on its head, as described in the article, you know who will never get the short end of the stick, and who will.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Vs1
add

[Vs1]

Just now, Gnossie said:

VS1:.  The recent land confiscation from whites who paid for land and helped blacks in Africa by providing treatment, money, marching, political aid, and constitutional and legal drafting seems unfairly punitive. 

I should add that I have suffered severely at the hands of some specific folk in power in that country and still lack comprehension of why their children (or those who caused no harm or helped the oppressed) should suffer. That does not mean I don't support ending suffering of the oppressed.  

Edited April 13, 2018 by Vs1
error

[Vs1]

4 hours ago, sandik said:

     On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:10 PM, pherank said:

I don't know if this would be considered off-topic, but I would also recommend Molly Ringwald's New Yorker article, What About “The Breakfast Club”?
Revisiting the movies of my youth in the age of #MeToo.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/what-about-the-breakfast-club-molly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink

It's an interesting read, but, Ringwald fails to do what Bouder got right - she doesn't define terms, and is full of assumptions about what is right and wrong, what is ugly or beautiful, etc. Her assumptions/beliefs are probably part of the reason why she has a difficult time understanding how artwork can contain negative or violent content and still provide the audience with catharsis, a sense of well being, or inspiration, or even an "ah hah!" moment of enlightenment. I get the feeling that Ringwald tends to take film content very literally, and misses many of the overt implications. But, I could be wrong.  ;)

I think part of the twist for Ringwald is that she was pretty much the same age as the teenagers she portrayed on screen when she made those films, and her relationship with the director John Hughes couldn't help but be affected by that.  It seems to me she's trying to do what several other writers have been attempting  (including Clare Dederer, dealing with more extreme examples here) -- find a way to understand how beautiful or exciting or challenging art can come from compromised circumstances.  Many of us have been grappling with this challenge here on BA this year, and likely we will all still be working on this as we go forward.

What kind of catharsis or enlightenment occurs from Pretty in Pink or Breakfast Club? What definitions were required or omitted?  What benefit is there to gang rape or drugged date rape, even as art?

[pherank]

2 hours ago, Vs1 said:

What kind of catharsis or enlightenment occurs from Pretty in Pink or Breakfast Club? What definitions were required or omitted?  What benefit is there to gang rape or drugged date rape, even as art?

Ringwald gives an example in her article of someone (Emil Wilbekin) who benefited psychologically from watching Hughes films. Every person has a different experience of a film, or individual artwork though. We don't all share the same experience when viewing/listening to/touching art.

For some people, the only acceptable function of art is to create "beauty", and avoid "ugliness", but that argument quickly bogs down in people's conflicting definitions of beauty and ugliness. It also doesn't mention another important psychological function of art - an aspect the artists themselves often rely upon - a process for healing and increased understanding of a wide array of experiences. But we don't heal from "beauty" necessarily - we heal from injury. Artworks can admit to the negative and the ugly, and help us to process the darker aspects of life. They can also help us to appreciate things that initially we ignored, or were once "not our cup of tea". And then there is the idea that artists are "preserving culture", and culture is one vast amorphous entity consisting of more than the "pretty", the "elegant", or "classy" (conveying status). Art for an artist does tend to be a much more compelling and involving experience than it is for the occasional viewer/listener.

The best art tends to be greater than the sum of its parts. That's why attempts to reduce the artwork to a terse description of some negative content - 'the ballet depicts a rape, so I don't recommend seeing the ballet', are often not fair or accurate. And most artwork just has to be experienced firsthand so viewers can have their own experience of the artwork and draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, the only experience anyone is having is of the text in a critical review. Good for the writer, maybe, but not good for art.

[sandik]

On 4/13/2018 at 12:25 PM, Vs1 said:

What kind of catharsis or enlightenment occurs from Pretty in Pink or Breakfast Club? What definitions were required or omitted?  What benefit is there to gang rape or drugged date rape, even as art?

I'm a bit older than the original audience for John Hughes' work, but they did feel truthful to my memories of high school life -- seeing a young woman who was learning to stand for herself was a compelling image back then.  Especially in a world where the victims of rape were still routinely assumed to have been somehow at fault for at least a part of the experience.

[pherank]

33 minutes ago, sandik said:

I'm a bit older than the original audience for John Hughes' work, but they did feel truthful to my memories of high school life -- seeing a young woman who was learning to stand for herself was a compelling image back then.  Especially in a world where the victims of rape were still routinely assumed to have been somehow at fault for at least a part of the experience.

I don't consider myself a fan of Hughes, exactly, but The Breakfast Club was a 'classic' of its type and era. Even with the stereotypes on display, his depictions of teens felt real to me - except that my high school was never that nice looking.  ;)
One thing I've never forgotten - the Bender character (played by Judd Nelson), looked, sounded and behaved remarkably like someone I went to school with. Same general background as the character. And I think many audience members were reminded of people that they had grown up with.

Edited April 16, 2018 by pherank

[Vs1]

6 hours ago, sandik said:

I'm a bit older than the original audience for John Hughes' work, but they did feel truthful to my memories of high school life -- seeing a young woman who was learning to stand for herself was a compelling image back then.  Especially in a world where the victims of rape were still routinely assumed to have been somehow at fault for at least a part of the experience.

Hughes and the sleeping victim blamed the victim. Such a great joke.  Also, Gloria Alfred's clients' parade of recantation has begun,as predicted. I'm sure. Take ten steps back.

[sandik]

4 hours ago, Vs1 said:

Hughes and the sleeping victim blamed the victim. Such a great joke.  Also, Gloria Alfred's clients' parade of recantation has begun,as predicted. I'm sure. Take ten steps back.

One of the things I find interesting is that the works are just old enough for many of us to remember those times and have a sense of how those attitudes fit into the zeitgeist, but they can hold a mirror up to our concerns and actions from that time.  My daughter and her cohort have different expectations of their world, but those requirements are built, in part, on the shoulders of the people who came before.

[Vs1]

20 hours ago, sandik said:

One of the things I find interesting is that the works are just old enough for many of us to remember those times and have a sense of how those attitudes fit into the zeitgeist, but they can hold a mirror up to our concerns and actions from that time.  My daughter and her cohort have different expectations of their world, but those requirements are built, in part, on the shoulders of the people who came before.

If you assume women don't discriminate or Allred wasn't part of a play

[sandik]

On 4/17/2018 at 8:11 AM, Vs1 said:

If you assume women don't discriminate or Allred wasn't part of a play

Some humans discriminate and some do not.  Not sure what your comment about Gloria Allred here refers to.

[Vs1]

I don't know the policy on speculation.

[Quiggin]

I think the policy on speculation is to be fair to everybody and provide some basis for the speculation.

Regarding Ringwald's coming to terms to the movie, it's a complicated matter to see things in a new light and address a wrong you might have been part of. For instance the process Britain went through to realize the relation slavery had to their wealth in the early 19c century and how to set up the mechanism to move away from that. I also think of how the characters in novels like "Portrait of a Lady" or Tolstoys "Story of a Marriage" slowly come to acknowledge the change of relation between spouses. My own evolution regarding issues like racism – micro racism – and feminism have been slow and very step by step, almost as if I were walking backwards trying to get through a forest, small clearing by clearing.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Quiggin