That's a really good summary, actually. Especially given the brevity of the post.
For the record I did thankfully manage to complete two humanities masters degrees in the 90s (one being a "the masters you get when you realize the PhD program is pointless, so you quit") without studying Butler, although not without studying Lacan and Foucault, whose nonsense, FYI, is just as nonsensical in the original French.
“Fought” rather than “faught” (in the Second Wave section)
“Reflecting” rather than “reflecing” (in endnote 4; is it possible that that Fleming quote is really as bad as it sounds? Or, perhaps better: is there any conceivable way it is *not* as bad as it sounds? 😬)
Yes, I agree with that. I mean, I do think rape culture is exaggeration. But there is also no question that attitude towards rape of changed. Google blazing saddles and “pull a number six.“ Rape was kind of trivialized. Just a few days ago I watched an old movie called the Warriors. it was in remains one of my favorite movies. It’s about a teenage gang trying to get home. at one point, the leader of the gang threatens a woman with “pulling a train on her.” He’s the hero of the movie, not even an antihero. And I think there was a lot of rape to pick it in movies, which was supposed to be horrific, but also served to appeal to prurient interests. I’m thinking of Death Wish for example, where the camera lingers overly long on the rape of a housekeeper.
This is from a scathing review of Dr. No in the New Statesman in 1958 (by Paul Johnson, of all people, who happens to be one of my favorite popular historians!):
"There are three basic ingredients in Dr No, all unhealthy, all thoroughly English: the sadism of a schoolboy bully, the mechanical, two-dimensional sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude, snob-cravings of a suburban adult."
(I googled the quote just after I commented, and found/read that very Independent article.)
Still, might not this be an "exception that proves the rule" (i.e., the "rule" that all decent folks generally agree rape is bad)? Fleming apparently gleefully wrote his Bond as "sexist, snobbish, and sadistic" (a portrayal heavily sanitized for the movies, obviously) and, even if he meant Bond to be his surrogate, it sounds like he was a bit of a deviant himself.
But it's not like the Western canon abounds with glorification of rape (even in works by all those terrible awful dead white men), and I'm not sure what relationship Fleming's dated, self-indulgent, pulp-ish fiction bears to what is portrayed as "rape culture" on, say, college campuses nowadays.
Thing is, as a secular reader, I love James Bond. But as a Jew, I find that he falls short on many levels of humanity, and I think it truly moral culture probably would not have lifted him up the way he has been as a character. But we have never lived in a truly moral culture.
Excellent mansplanation (to coin a term), Tom! I think feminism often suffers from the motte and bailey fallacy. We’re not usually arguing about the same things. People who say they hate feminism are often thinking of some of the regrettably misandrist fringes of the movement, while defenders of feminism like me keep saying, Women are human beings who ought to have equal human rights! How can anyone possibly object to that? Which of course places me firmly in the Second Wave.
This is so good. It's fascinating to see the history of all this in one glance. You know, Henrik Ibsen was a useful tool of that movement back in the late 1800's with his plays, "Hedda Gabler" and "A Doll's House." I happen to think that Genesis 3:16 says it all. We are all out of whack, post-fall. Even if you don't believe in that stuff, it's obvious that relationships between the sexes is quite complicated. Everyone is selfish. God forbid that someone should lay aside their own wants and desires for the mutual benefit of the unit.
That's a really good summary, actually. Especially given the brevity of the post.
For the record I did thankfully manage to complete two humanities masters degrees in the 90s (one being a "the masters you get when you realize the PhD program is pointless, so you quit") without studying Butler, although not without studying Lacan and Foucault, whose nonsense, FYI, is just as nonsensical in the original French.
We live in a crazy world. The footnote about the end result being as bad as (or worse than) the thing it replaced is so so true.
"Andrew [sic] Dworkin"
"Chics" should also be "chicks", I believe.
Fixed. Thanks for the assist!
If I may:
“Alexandre” rather than “Alexandar”
“#MeToo” rather than “#MeeToo”
“Steinem” rather than “Steinham”
“Millett” rather than “Millet”
“Fought” rather than “faught” (in the Second Wave section)
“Reflecting” rather than “reflecing” (in endnote 4; is it possible that that Fleming quote is really as bad as it sounds? Or, perhaps better: is there any conceivable way it is *not* as bad as it sounds? 😬)
Yes, I agree with that. I mean, I do think rape culture is exaggeration. But there is also no question that attitude towards rape of changed. Google blazing saddles and “pull a number six.“ Rape was kind of trivialized. Just a few days ago I watched an old movie called the Warriors. it was in remains one of my favorite movies. It’s about a teenage gang trying to get home. at one point, the leader of the gang threatens a woman with “pulling a train on her.” He’s the hero of the movie, not even an antihero. And I think there was a lot of rape to pick it in movies, which was supposed to be horrific, but also served to appeal to prurient interests. I’m thinking of Death Wish for example, where the camera lingers overly long on the rape of a housekeeper.
PS I dictated that reply. Hence the typos.
Yeah, it's hard to soft peddle this. One could argue he had in mind role playing. Fleming was into BDSM, apparently.
Fleming wrote: “All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken. It was his sweet brutality against my bruised body that made his act of love so piercingly wonderful.” See https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/james-bond-ian-fleming-censored-edits-b2290277.html
This is from a scathing review of Dr. No in the New Statesman in 1958 (by Paul Johnson, of all people, who happens to be one of my favorite popular historians!):
"There are three basic ingredients in Dr No, all unhealthy, all thoroughly English: the sadism of a schoolboy bully, the mechanical, two-dimensional sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude, snob-cravings of a suburban adult."
Lovely.
(I googled the quote just after I commented, and found/read that very Independent article.)
Still, might not this be an "exception that proves the rule" (i.e., the "rule" that all decent folks generally agree rape is bad)? Fleming apparently gleefully wrote his Bond as "sexist, snobbish, and sadistic" (a portrayal heavily sanitized for the movies, obviously) and, even if he meant Bond to be his surrogate, it sounds like he was a bit of a deviant himself.
But it's not like the Western canon abounds with glorification of rape (even in works by all those terrible awful dead white men), and I'm not sure what relationship Fleming's dated, self-indulgent, pulp-ish fiction bears to what is portrayed as "rape culture" on, say, college campuses nowadays.
Thing is, as a secular reader, I love James Bond. But as a Jew, I find that he falls short on many levels of humanity, and I think it truly moral culture probably would not have lifted him up the way he has been as a character. But we have never lived in a truly moral culture.
Well, Grammarly let me down, but my readers did not! Thank you!
Excellent mansplanation (to coin a term), Tom! I think feminism often suffers from the motte and bailey fallacy. We’re not usually arguing about the same things. People who say they hate feminism are often thinking of some of the regrettably misandrist fringes of the movement, while defenders of feminism like me keep saying, Women are human beings who ought to have equal human rights! How can anyone possibly object to that? Which of course places me firmly in the Second Wave.
Boooo! Disagree! Back to the kitchen with you!
Excellent recap.
This is so good. It's fascinating to see the history of all this in one glance. You know, Henrik Ibsen was a useful tool of that movement back in the late 1800's with his plays, "Hedda Gabler" and "A Doll's House." I happen to think that Genesis 3:16 says it all. We are all out of whack, post-fall. Even if you don't believe in that stuff, it's obvious that relationships between the sexes is quite complicated. Everyone is selfish. God forbid that someone should lay aside their own wants and desires for the mutual benefit of the unit.