| 
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular
Barton,
I know you said 'ladies', but I'm going to respond anyway  .
You said:
Ladies, isn't it part of the fantasy to be swept off your feet as Scarlet was with an under tone of 'are you willing to fight for me?' This is certainly part of the story that men have been taught, even though they would freely admit that Rhett was a 'cad.'
Well, not really so much so, in the book. Scarlett O'Hara in the book is not the saucy Hollywood tease she was made into. She's not a very nice person, but she is stubborn, independent, strong, intelligent, and has a sense of humour. Hollywood could not make *that* movie (see note about Andrea Dworkin and fairy tales, above).
Part of *whose* fantasy? There may be women out there who not only have that fantasy, but also would be willing to say so in a public forum. 'Fight for me?' That is a nice Mediaeval gender role stereotype, if ever there was one. Are you willing to fight another man to win the spoils: me? That's one fantasy. Me=Heisman Trophy, Stanley Cup, name your object. 'Are you willing to fight me to have your way with me' is a rape-fantasy. They exist. Women have them. This is not a sign of healthy self-respect, but it is true. Men have them. This is not a sign of respect for women, but it is true. (Heterosexual assumptions not necessarily applicable, but we have a heterosexual example in 'Gone with the Wind'.)
Rhett Butler in the book is not so much a 'cad' as a borderline sociopath. The book is about extremes. Ashley Wilkes is the ultimate milquetoast (straight variety), and decent person. Melanie Wilkes is fragile of health, and one of the original Steel Magnolia types. The book has impulsive Scarlett forever chasing honourable Ashley, and impulsive Rhett needing to control impulsive Scarlett. Deconstruct a little, and you have 'The Taming of the Shrew'. (A wholly repellent, if well-crafted, play)
This mythos is so old, and girls are still slaves to it. As for boys, the best ones I've ever met have all been raised by single mothers. That is 'boys', not 'men'. There is a difference. It is qualitative and unrelated to age, as is 'girls'/'women'. Men and women, of whom there are not many around, are not slaves to any mythos, and more or less do whatever they like, barring hurting people on purpose.
I am not going to say a word about the concept of 'Daddy's Little Girl' and 'Momma's Boy' and what worlds of apart they are.
Your ball,
Sara, (my turn for the chip)
for LeKZ
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by LLWaz (I'm a figmental lammergeier and h2g2's AWESOME!)
A good show indeed  . Although the discussion is getting away from "peer reviewing" and I'd hate to see it sinbinned for that.
A companion article on the lines of 'Why does this make a popular teenage girl popular?'?
Waz
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by Lucinda (et al) - Dun Researchin'
Those involved may consider moving their discussion of the pros and cons of 'popular' girls to be attached to the entry itself. It's ever-so-slightly seperate from the pros and cons of the entry, after all...
On a side note, perhaps it is worth mentioning the soap/drama thingamajig entitled "Popular" which deals very much with these kinds of issues, albeit in a superficial manner. It was on Sky One not so long ago, and my entire family, less me, got addicted. Just a brief mention, of course - a sentence rather than a paragraph...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by Barton
I too agree that this discussion of "Gone with the Wind" should be moved. Those who want to follow it please visit my 'space' for my reluctant but necessary reply to LeKZ.
Meanwhile, I'm just marking time till this article is selected.
Barton
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by sea (alive... still... sometimes popping in...)
nix the footnotes? but i like them so...
and yes, actually, a lot of women have that rape fantasy. a big, strong man who knows what he wants and isn't afraid to take it, ie. have his way with you... /ahem/.  well, it happens.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular
Sea,
Eeeewwww.  .
But yeah, they do. <puke>
Why is not for here, but maybe at Barton's 'space'?
Ooky.
Arpeggio, GAG me with an enTRENCHing tool, for LeKZ
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by sea (alive... still... sometimes popping in...)
arpeggio, hon, since when in the millions of years we've been around have women EVER been rational? (or men, for that matter...  )
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2001 by Barton
Don't drop the footnotes, take the text of the notes and put it directly in the body of the article. I suspect that previously, you wanted to preserve the image of talking us through a day in the life of this person without intruding the largely editorial content of the notes into that narative. But now, you have taken the editorial stance from the implied to the blatant, so inserting the notes would only work to support your preamble.
That's just my opinion and it's largely an issue of style at that. Feel free to keep them just the way they are if that's what you want. I liked them before and I still like them. I was just pointing out that things have changed.
Barton
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 28, 2001 by Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!
Hey there, sea!
Is Peer Review still something you want to pursue with this one?
Mikey
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 28, 2001 by sea (alive... still... sometimes popping in...)
hey mikey...
er.... i guess this entry needs more work. i guess i'll take it out of PR and resubmit it when i've had a better look at it.
thanks!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 30, 2001 by BBC auto-messages
Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'The h2g2 Writing Workshop'.
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 1, 2002 by J'au-æmne in Review Fora
Hi I really enjoyed this one.
I read an article in The Times recently about these kinds of girls. One girl outlined the rules for her Clique:
Mondays: wear something cute, skirt maybe, so that everyone is reminded you are pretty, because they may have forgotten over the weekend.
Jeans are not permitted on any day bar Friday, and if you wear them another day bad things will be done.
You may have non-clique friends to sit with the clique for lunch a number of times per month, provinding they are approved by members in a conversation at the lockers earlier in the day...
the clique needs to bond, and this process is continuous. Anything one girl does reflects on the rest.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 3, 2002 by Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese
hey sea, do you know what a 'zombie entry' is?
It's dead (or appears that way) but Scouts can't remove it from a review forum because the author is still around. So, no progress is made and the '2 months offline rule' can't be applied. This here entry looks like a living, er... sorry, *un-dead* example 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 23, 2005 by Cyzaki
How's this going?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 4, 2005 by Cyzaki
Hello?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jan 26, 2007 by Alex 'Tufty' Ashman [!]
The author seems to have elvised and the Entry doesn't look suitable for the Edited Guide - it could do with removing from the Writing Workshop and possibly submitting to the Alternative Writing Workshop.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jan 27, 2007 by Alex 'Tufty' Ashman [!]
Note: This Entry has been seconded (F43882?thread=3835955) has been added to a list of Writing Workshop removals. The Entry will hopefully be removed shortly, after which I will submit it to the Alternative Writing Workshop.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jan 29, 2007 by Alex 'Tufty' Ashman [!]
Ok, the Entry has now left the EGWW.
*unsubscribes*
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
