the bitchfest book is 50% boring and 50% interesting. the article on horror movies by Tammy Oler inspired a lot of thoughts in me. could be cos i'm a big fan of movies. it seemed like she could not watch a movie without seeing something anti-feminist in it, something that possibly degrades women or mystifies women by making them outcasts or monsters. as long as movies are being made, you can find all kinds of angles looking at women and depicting them in a certain way. movies, like much of any other media, have lots of chauvinism in them, lots of ideals and thoughts that are wrong, but i think the article takes it too far. it is specifically modern horror movies and the adolescent female characters in them. in the movies she examines, women are possessed, become monsters and turn into mere portals of higher, evil powers. as long as movies are made of such topics, someone, either a male or a female, has to play the leading role. and if the leading roles were only given to men, which used to be the case, feminists would be pissed over that, why are women disregarded and not given important roles?? well, we now got plenty of important roles, not only as homemakers and wiwes and lovers, but as vicious beings, capable of doing monstreous things. Oler seems specifically disturbed over the fact that in many of the movies that she decided to feature, the supernatural powers taking over the female start activating as the female reaches puberty. okay when the article is about "modern horror/female adolescents" there are not a lot of options. there's the mensturation happening, the confusion of becoming an adult woman physically and mentally, and that is when the 'beast' is unleashed. Oler is upset because this supposedly defames women by suggesting that when a female child turns into an adult, i.e. woman, she becomes a monster or a portal to evil. yes, i've seen these movies and these roles. what about the other 97% of horror movies? well, there is the female character in slasher films who survives because she has tomboyish characteristics and does not have sex with anyone, unlike the other, less lucky, female characters. pursuing sexuality is punishable by death, its an old joke within horror films, if she has sex, she will die. i could see the positive message in these movies too, the female character who doesn't merely trust on her sexuality to be her main 'weapon', but instead trusts on her instinct and acts independently with a survival mode on, wins. is that not pro-female? the girls that stand behind the random guy, after sex, screaming as the monster/evil arrives, will get slaughtered, as does the random guy. anyway, to get back on track. Oler points out that two very notable movies, Rosemary's Baby and the Omen both depict an evil entity that enters the victim while it is still a fetus in a womans womb. well, this is an example of a woman being merely a portal for evil, and nothing more. this, to the writer, seems to be sign that her as a feminist has to pick on and be annoyed by. i personally disagree... first off, Omen is really occupied with the child being the embodiment of the evil, and as it happens, children are born from their mothers. the movie is about the child, not the mother, and if the mother is anything, she is a victim, but not in a bad way. now, the actual topic, horror movies are all about being scary, and the whole 'being pregnant with satan' idea is scary. not because women specifically are the ones getting pregnant but merely because of the act itself, a life is being born and evil takes over it from the very beginning. i'm not sure if Oler would rather have pregnancies not happen in horror movies at all, or if the pregnant female character should, with her girl power, be able to exorcise the evil from her child. that would end the movie very short though. exploiting the idea of typically innocent child or fetus as being evil is a great for movies, and there's nothing sexist about that, it's about the the contrast of what we're used to seeing and thinking about children and birth... no one, least of all their own mother, would like to see a child actually be evil. plus, if the representation of motherhood lacked from these movies, the feminists would be upset and see it as sexist. they'd probably complain that movies are discriminatory towards natural female processes and motherhood because they only want to depict women as sex objects. also, Oler was unhappy with the Exorcist. in Exorcist, a young girl becomes possessed and the saviors use pretty harsh tactics in trying to win her over back to the good side, as do the demon possessors on their behalf. i get the feeling from Oler's writing that this is not good. it's about the battle of good and evil for god's sakes. anyway, in the end, the priest carrying out the exorcism hits the girl, which again Oler seems to doom; "in no other film context would the act of a grown man punching a teenage girl be acceptable, or even understandable". indeed, considering the context it makes sense and is not about promoting domestic violence. i don't know what the problem really is, considering she notices the context of the movie and all. the priest then himself gets a demon in him, probably thanks to touching her, and jumps out the window. the girl is left alone sobbing in the corner. end of the movie. Oler describes her becoming useless as the object of horror once she was 'cured', and hence also useless for the movie. last time i checked that was called a happy ending in a horror movie. the priest sacrificed himself to save the girl. bad thing from a feminist point of view? suppose so. you can always twist and turn things to make them look like what u want to see. i obviously do that. Oler and i disagree on stuff as we look at them from opposite sides.

one more thing, i find it funny how Oler goes on and on about Carrie. i mean there's the whole menstrual blood/becoming a woman/becoming a revengeful monster -combo perfectly laid out. Oler describes Carrie "unleashing her vast, horrific female power on everyone in her path." err. telekinesis, which Carrie is in the movie capable of, is no more feminine power than any other imaginary ability. the fact that at the time women had not had many such roles in either books or movies, exhibiting negative powers and hate that grew from humiliation, acted a part in why the story made it so big. and all the more reason for King to write it in the first place. would we rather not have witnessed this movie because of its supposed horror-characterization of women? i can see some of the things that Oler describes, how Carrie's horror of becoming a woman starts it all and the puberty and revenge walk hand in hand. however, i find this merely a plot, just like the other plots. thankfully, Oler also sees the movies ability to reflect on the difficulties of a teenager growing up.


pointing out where feminists go wrong in my opinion is one of my favorite hobbies. that said, feminism is needed and mostly i agree with the ideas and thoughts, there's just stuff that is too hardcore in my opinion and that depicts ideas that seem more paranoid than feminist. its no better than chauvinism when it goes that far.

something that a lot of 'feminists' do, is adapt male attributes, such as short hair and trousers, and drop off female attributes like jewellery or skirts. if its about your actual style, about who you are, i think its cool, of course, but too many do it and think its somehow a feminist enactment. if your point is to say that women are equal and just as capable as men, how does dressing up like a man communicate that. i wouldn't go as far as saying that women need to dress 'womanly' to prove anything either. i suggest we dress any way we want to, not avoiding feminine nor masculine attributes on purpose. the surface does carry a message, but so do actions. you can dress like a whore but not act like one. and you can certainly dress like a man and act like a whore still. and visa versa. but lets imagine a world in which all women dress more less manly, assuming all women were feminists like that. imagine the view. no long hair anywhere, except maybe the occasional guy, last time i checked it was still allowed from a feminist point of view. now, what do we think of the scene? i bet the modern hardcore feminists would start dressing up ultra-femininely, and their tagline would be that women need to empower themselves from the chains of masculinity, and that "we need to cherish our bodies with feminine garments, because we are w-o-m-e-n!" but, right now, the more female you dress, the more bimbo you are... the shorter the dress, the less brain she has, supposedly. sidenote: you can dress femininely and not slutty, too. so what do we wanna do? i'm not going to dress like a guy to gain more credibility. either i get where i want by dressing up any way i want, for example as a girl, or i don't. the statement of dressing up manly just doesn't make sense to me. it seems like a way of trying to make yourself seem credible, and signalling that you're not giving in to the chauvinist machine that demands that girls were short skirts to be objects. that's nice and dandy. and you then open your mouth and say something (hopefully) smart. you are now officially a girl who's smart and tries to look like a guy. is there a connection? only men or women who dress up like men are smart? if you're any smart you'd be dressing up like a guy by now? i'd rather see a smart woman who isn't afraid to look like one (that does not have to include miniskirts.) i know rigt now it doesn't pay off too well, but avoiding it isn't helping. but if i have to choose, i rather create a connection between miniskirts and intelligence than trousers and intelligence. the latter is the predominant way of thinking already. i wear both jeans and skirts.


Andi Zeisler on cosmetic surgery:
"It's as hazardous to applaud only those who don't choose surgery as being worthy of feminist approbation as it is to roundly denigrate those who do."
finally something i can agree with.

(the internet wasn't working during the day so i picked up the book and yea, this was it. makes me wish the internet didn't work once a week or so)