All I Ask is Thematic Consistancy

Had a date night with the hubby Friday night and we went to see the new Superman movie "Man of Steel". I really liked it.  I really liked it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which it has given me lots of meta to think about.  I love meta.  I’ve written two sessions of meta on it so far, and I haven’t even gotten to the meta I really what to write! But I'll start with a more academic view on what I liked about this movie.

Keep in mind that I've never been a real big fan of the previous Superman movies. In fact, given a choice of all the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, I would chose to watch the 3rd one with Richard Pryor. Why? Because it's the one that I can totally throw reality out the window and enjoy for the complete ridiculousness of it. With the other two, I always end up annoyed that they break the universal themes that make Superman so very interesting to me.

Take the first movie: If Superman spins the world backwards and goes back to save Lois, doesn't he spin all the people in the world back and by saving Lois, allows all the other people he saved the first time die? I mean, how can he spin the world back and only effect what happened to Lois?

Now I can usually let stuff like that slide. I can, on average, accept some really questionable plot points. Except when those questionable plot points completely undermine the themes of the rest of the movie. In the first movie, Clark’s inability to save his Dad was the defining point of his life. It established that Superman, despite his powers, had to live by the some rules we all did: you can’t save everyone and there are unavoidable consequences for each decision we make. Just as Superman’s original decision to stop Luther had a consequence, saving Lois should have had a consequence. It should have been very costly. Instead we are left with this idea that Superman can, at any time, rewind the world and save whoever he wants! Now that's a hell of a superpower. But even more than that, it completely removes Superman from the consequences of being human, which completely destroys who Superman is.

They do the same type of thing in the second movie!  I could dislike the movie because of the stupidity of how Superman kisses Lois and she forgets everything. Well not every everything, just everything about Clark being Superman. I mean, what the hell, people? But even before that, the movie lost me. I mean, I have a problem with the whole damn concept of the second movie: that Clark/Superman has to chose between living as a human -- Clark Kent -- and living as a superhero -- Superman. The whole movie basically said that Clark couldn't be both human and meta-human. Which is, of course, the complete antithesis of what Superman is. Superman is both alien and human. He can't chose to be one of them, he has to learn how to live life as both.

So yeah, I'll take the third movie. It doesn't try to be serious. It doesn't claim any big hold on the mythos. It's campy and silly and fun. It never sets down a theme, so no matter how out there it gets, it never violates it's own theme. So I'm good with that.

What I'm really good with, however, is this latest movie. Man of Steel gives me the mythos I love and doesn’t ever violate that mythos. It never waivers from the concept that Clark Kent is Superman and that Superman is Clark Kent – meta-human and human, all in one.  In fact, that’s the whole point, the whole thematic arc of the movie.

Which, in my book, makes it awesome.

Why I'll Never Be A Feminist...

I will never be a Feminist.  Note the capital F on that word. I am and always have been a feminist (small f).  I come from a long, long line of capable, strong women.  I've always been able to take care of myself and do what needs to be done. I don't "know my place" and I never have. I grew up in the country and I built pens, poured cement, carried feed, picked rock, made wood, etc. all my life. I learned to shoot, trap and fish at a young age and I'm still good at all those things. I raised my own animals, butchered, dressed and preserved the meat. You need a door hung, a hole filled or a gate repaired? I'm your girl.  You need a rabbit pen built, a garden dug or a chicken coop cleaned? Call on me.

But wait. I'm a Renaissance (wo)man. Because I sew, bake and craft, too.  You want a meal made, bread baked or a fancy dessert to make people go "Oooh"?  I can do that.  You need a dress sewed, a quilt made or a cool new overnight bag? Let me get my sewing machine. You want me make you some giardiniera from what I have in the garden, perhaps some rhubarb and berry sauce or ganache hot chocolate with homemade marshmallows?  I got that down.

So don't give any crap about how the "little woman" can't do anything, or how men work so damn hard all week just to come home to complaints and a "honey do" list. I may not be able to bench press what a man can or do the work in the same way or even as fast, but I can get the work done and I can make it all look good.  

It's true I don't know anything about the "glass ceiling" because I don't work in that world. But I know what it's like to be ignored when talking to someone who thinks that women really don't know anything. I know what it's like to have guys never meet your eyes. I know what it's like to be dismissed because of your looks and gender. I know women fight against that crap every. single. day.

But I will never be a Feminist. 

In my experience, Feminists lose sight of the real reason for the fight: the individual women. As a Feminist they have to be Political. They have to narrow their fight to a handful of agreed upon Issues and place all their efforts into those Issues. The Issues become more important then the women. The women who Feminists started out trying to protect suddenly become mere statistics in the "Issue". Once they do so, they no longer truly represent or advocate for women, they lose the right to call themselves feminists -- not matter what moniker they give themselves.

Take the whole awful story of the Gosnell trial. He was a man who used, exploited and debased women. What he did is so vile that it can't even be reported in the media.  Do you understand how depraved an act has to be before the media won't report it? He presented himself to the women of his neighborhood as someone who would help them, care for them, provide them with safe, helpful care. Instead, he butchered them, operated on them in unsafe and horrendous conditions, threatened, intimidated and abused them in order to continue to do this.

Where are the Feminists in this? Where is the justifiable outrage that this perverted man exploited these women? That he was allowed by the government to continue this practice after years of complaints? That these poor, under-educated, frightened women turned to him in desperation and ended up... ended up in this nightmare?

Please, someone explain to me the lack of righteous anger over this. Explain to me how any woman out there, especially those who so often wear the title of "Feminist" can stand by while this atrocity is so readily ignored. If anywhere, at any time, in that explanation the phrase "well, this is abortion" comes up: you automatically fail. Right there you put an Issue ahead of the women you are supposed to be caring about.  You are justifying the exploitation and degradation of women by invoking an "Issue".  

Anytime you are afraid to deal with evil because you are afraid that doing so may undermine some "Issue" you support, you become that evil.  By pretending evil doesn't exist, you perpetuate that evil. 

Being a true feminist is being strong enough to face down evil, to acknowledge that even the best ideas and intentions can be subverted. Fighting for the rights of women does not ever -- <b>does not EVER</b> -- entail the acceptance or willful ignorance of any evil acts.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good (wo)men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (paraphrased)

The Expectation of Privacy...

I find the recent controversy surrounding the Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and the taping of his campaign office interesting.  He's having the FBI investigate it as a "Watergate Style" wiretapping and all the news wants to talk about is what was said in the office.  Now, quite frankly I find that what was talked about to be really very mild and tame compared to what I hear people talk about every day in private conversations concerning people who's political views they don't like. Hell, it's tamer than most of the stuff talked about online! I mean, all of the topics they touched on are open fodder on the net and in political conversations, so I'm not exactly sure why so many people are making hay with it -- except that they can make hay with it.