How a Feminist Can Like James Bond

My favorite Bond movie is "Thunderball" and my favorite Bond girl is Domino Derval.
I deem "Thunderball" the sexiest Bond movie and sure, the Bond girls are objectified, but so is Bond and the entire thing is drenched in a slightly feverish, sexy atmosphere.
I dread to think of what a Bond movie in which all of the characters are completely divorced from their sexuality would look like. Though admittedly, I think we have already seen glimpses of that in the DC era.

Salomé wrote:

I would say that the idea that Bond girls are highly objectified is a questionable statement at best, certainly within the DC Bond era.
The last one I would truly deem as such would likely be Denise Richards as Christmas Jones.
Also, a lot of the very best Bond girls (imho) fall within this "objectified" category, so I'm not sure this is a huge problem.

Everyone knows what a "Bond girl" is, even those who have never seen a film. I mean, first, the "Bond girl" is defined by being "Bond's girl", so she lacks an identity of her own. The girl's identity (and worth!) is defined by Bond's desire for her. The Bond girl is defined by her relation to  a man, how could that ever be reconciled with feminism?
Second, it is a prescriptive category and as soon as you have such a prescriptive category as what a "Bond girl" is supposed to look like, behave like, you'll have a collision with feminist thought.
And third, as I have said before, this is all about beauty ideals. In a society where models are criticized, where are the Bond girls supposed to be? Of course they fall into the category of "dangerous beauty ideals" if you are talking about this issue. (And I always think that Eva Green is dangerously thin, talking about it - that doesn't look healthy and it doesn't look too attractive either, at least to my eyes).
The concept of a "Bond girl" collides with feminism. That is just an unchangeable fact if you look at both systems.

But why should Bond girls be feminist to begin with?

Salomé wrote:

But why should Bond girls be feminist to begin with?

Wrong question.   This is the answer to this question:

ironpony wrote:

So why should feminists be offended if it's the other way around?

All I do is pointing out why feminism is at odds with the Bond franchise.

But aren't the Bond actors objectified as well? I mean Daniel Craig coming out of the ocean looking all muscular, or how they make him look all handsome in that tuxedo.

As for the Bond girl actresses choosing to pose for Playboy, that was there decisions, and it's not like it was in their contracts to do so, was it?

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

I think I can agree with you there, accept maybe Halle Berry?

ironpony wrote:

But aren't the Bond actors objectified as well?  I mean Daniel Craig coming out of the ocean looking all muscular, or how they make him look all handsome in that tuxedo.

As for the Bond girl actresses choosing to pose for Playboy, that was there decisions, and it's not like it was in their contracts to do so, was it?

You still miss the point that Bond is Bond whereas the girl is "Bond's girl".
As a category, the Bond girl does not have a name of her own but is only referred to by using his name. Her existence as a Bond girl is dependant on Bond's existence. If you apply the rule that a Bond film needs two Bond girls, as I have read it in here, you blow feminism sky-high. Two women are dependant in their identity of one man.  
You can never reconcile that with feminism. Feminism is about women having their own identity.
The girls are objecitified in as far as they are robbed of their individualism and only function as "Bond girls" - as props.
What function does a Bond girl have? Bond is the hero and the girls...are...let's call it "decoration".
Now you will throw examples and bits and pieces at me. No. I am talking about the category, the function and the established understanding of what a "Bond girl" is. Whatever EON will do nowadays, they will never be able to change that so quickly. That is part of our cultural memory.

And, in the scene you mention there is not only a half-naked Craig, but also a half-naked Solange riding on a horse.  
Few franchises are so strongly connected to the Playboy as Bond is.
And, come on, the probably most famous depiction of a Bond girl is a with gold overpainted Gil.
You cannot add up one shot of Craig against decades of history of Bond girls. And what is a stronger objectification than making a statue of gold of her? A material object of worth? Decoration, as I said above.

We have not talked about violence against women yet. You know that this is an issue in the history of Bond films and otherwise I recommend the posted article.

FieldsMan wrote:

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

We have a bone to pick.

Kath wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

We have a bone to pick.

I hadn't expected anything less.

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

But aren't the Bond actors objectified as well?  I mean Daniel Craig coming out of the ocean looking all muscular, or how they make him look all handsome in that tuxedo.

As for the Bond girl actresses choosing to pose for Playboy, that was there decisions, and it's not like it was in their contracts to do so, was it?

You still miss the point that Bond is Bond whereas the girl is "Bond's girl".
As a category, the Bond girl does not have a name of her own but is only referred to by using his name. Her existence as a Bond girl is dependant on Bond's existence. If you apply the rule that a Bond film needs two Bond girls, as I have read it in here, you blow feminism sky-high. Two women are dependant in their identity of one man.  
You can never reconcile that with feminism. Feminism is about women having their own identity.
The girls are objecitified in as far as they are robbed of their individualism and only function as "Bond girls" - as props.
What function does a Bond girl have? Bond is the hero and the girls...are...let's call it "decoration".
Now you will throw examples and bits and pieces at me. No. I am talking about the category, the function and the established understanding of what a "Bond girl" is. Whatever EON will do nowadays, they will never be able to change that so quickly. That is part of our cultural memory.

And, in the scene you mention there is not only a half-naked Craig, but also a half-naked Solange riding on a horse.  
Few franchises are so strongly connected to the Playboy as Bond is.
And, come on, the probably most famous depiction of a Bond girl is a with gold overpainted Gil.
You cannot add up one shot of Craig against decades of history of Bond girls. And what is a stronger objectification than making a statue of gold of her? A material object of worth? Decoration, as I said above.

We have not talked about violence against women yet. You know that this is an issue in the history of Bond films and otherwise I recommend the posted article.

FieldsMan wrote:

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

We have a bone to pick.

The reason why I thought they were called Bond girls is because their are like 40 of them. Would a more appropriate term be 'a woman in a Bond movie that sleeps with Bond'?

ironpony wrote:

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

But aren't the Bond actors objectified as well?  I mean Daniel Craig coming out of the ocean looking all muscular, or how they make him look all handsome in that tuxedo.

As for the Bond girl actresses choosing to pose for Playboy, that was there decisions, and it's not like it was in their contracts to do so, was it?

You still miss the point that Bond is Bond whereas the girl is "Bond's girl".
As a category, the Bond girl does not have a name of her own but is only referred to by using his name. Her existence as a Bond girl is dependant on Bond's existence. If you apply the rule that a Bond film needs two Bond girls, as I have read it in here, you blow feminism sky-high. Two women are dependant in their identity of one man.  
You can never reconcile that with feminism. Feminism is about women having their own identity.
The girls are objecitified in as far as they are robbed of their individualism and only function as "Bond girls" - as props.
What function does a Bond girl have? Bond is the hero and the girls...are...let's call it "decoration".
Now you will throw examples and bits and pieces at me. No. I am talking about the category, the function and the established understanding of what a "Bond girl" is. Whatever EON will do nowadays, they will never be able to change that so quickly. That is part of our cultural memory.

And, in the scene you mention there is not only a half-naked Craig, but also a half-naked Solange riding on a horse.  
Few franchises are so strongly connected to the Playboy as Bond is.
And, come on, the probably most famous depiction of a Bond girl is a with gold overpainted Gil.
You cannot add up one shot of Craig against decades of history of Bond girls. And what is a stronger objectification than making a statue of gold of her? A material object of worth? Decoration, as I said above.

We have not talked about violence against women yet. You know that this is an issue in the history of Bond films and otherwise I recommend the posted article.

FieldsMan wrote:

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

We have a bone to pick.

The reason why I thought they were called Bond girls is because their are like 40 of them.  Would a more appropriate term be 'a woman in a Bond movie that sleeps with Bond'?

Do me a favour and don't say this to a feminist.
That is even worse.
Your description is exactly what objectification is about. 40 women are defined by the fact that they have slept with Bond. You do not say that Domino grieves her brother and that Vesper was a double-agent etc. etc. etc.
Feminism means equality for women, right? These women are defined by the fact that they have slept with Bond. If Bond does not want them, they are no-one. This is against equality because the girls have to be pretty enough to be chosen by Bond. That is the equivalent of a women who is defined by her husband. "Mrs Herman Smith". The wife of Herman Smith does not even have a name, because she does not have her own identity. She is simply the wife of Mr Smith. And the same applies to Domino & Co when they become Bond's girl.
This is a question of how you define identity.
And the message behind "Bond girl" is that you have to find a strong handsome man to be someone...I mean, you are one among 40, but that's all a woman can wish for.

I am not sure if you can actually turn the scenario around. Because if you have one handsome woman who has slept with 40 boys, do you know what people will say what she is? A slut.
Bond is considered cool because of his multitude of sexual partners, but a woman who has slept with more men than she has fingers to count them is most likely despised.

FieldsMan wrote:

I hadn't expected anything less.

I should have specified, so was not obvious enough.
This is not about CR. This is about you telling me what I have to do.

Falling in love and making a commitment doesn't work out for Bond ... look at what happens with Vesper and Tracy.

So if he 'loves them and leaves them', I think it's forgivable. Not least in the context of taking your pleasures where you may find them, because such is the nature of your work that it could literally be the death of you.

Why should Bond be feminist to begin with?

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Falling in love and making a commitment doesn't work out for Bond ... look at what happens with Vesper and Tracy.

So if he 'loves them and leaves them', I think it's forgivable. Not least in the context of taking your pleasures where you may find them, because such is the nature of your work that it could literally be the death of you.

Agreed. There is actually almost the same scenario in Atomic Blonde - which does feature the gender twist. But still it is a bit different here.

I actually think that Bond is a hero who saves the girls. At least in the novels, he often picks them up and helps them back on their feet. He frees Solitaire of the servitude to Mr BIG so that later can have a job in New York (as we learn in "007 in New York"); he pays for plastic surgery to have Rider's nose straightened and finds a job for her (as she plans to be a call girl); I mean, he kind of "heals" Vivienne Michel and he rescues her from certain death; he tells Domino that her lover is responsible for the murder of her brother...

It is simply a requirement of the pattern of this "Bond comes to the rescue" narrative that he must move on. He finds a girl in distress, helps her back on her feet and just goes on. This pattern does not require for him to stay. More importantly, he must find the next damsel in distress. But these facts are simply less known.

As everyone ever pointed out that Bond actually helps them into independence?!

Salomé wrote:

Why should Bond be feminist to begin with?

Who has ever said that this was a requirement?
No-one has asked for that. It is simply stated that Bond as a fanchise is problematic when it comes to gender issues and that feminists can enjoy it despite its problematic nature.

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

But aren't the Bond actors objectified as well?  I mean Daniel Craig coming out of the ocean looking all muscular, or how they make him look all handsome in that tuxedo.

As for the Bond girl actresses choosing to pose for Playboy, that was there decisions, and it's not like it was in their contracts to do so, was it?

You still miss the point that Bond is Bond whereas the girl is "Bond's girl".
As a category, the Bond girl does not have a name of her own but is only referred to by using his name. Her existence as a Bond girl is dependant on Bond's existence. If you apply the rule that a Bond film needs two Bond girls, as I have read it in here, you blow feminism sky-high. Two women are dependant in their identity of one man.  
You can never reconcile that with feminism. Feminism is about women having their own identity.
The girls are objecitified in as far as they are robbed of their individualism and only function as "Bond girls" - as props.
What function does a Bond girl have? Bond is the hero and the girls...are...let's call it "decoration".
Now you will throw examples and bits and pieces at me. No. I am talking about the category, the function and the established understanding of what a "Bond girl" is. Whatever EON will do nowadays, they will never be able to change that so quickly. That is part of our cultural memory.

And, in the scene you mention there is not only a half-naked Craig, but also a half-naked Solange riding on a horse.  
Few franchises are so strongly connected to the Playboy as Bond is.
And, come on, the probably most famous depiction of a Bond girl is a with gold overpainted Gil.
You cannot add up one shot of Craig against decades of history of Bond girls. And what is a stronger objectification than making a statue of gold of her? A material object of worth? Decoration, as I said above.

We have not talked about violence against women yet. You know that this is an issue in the history of Bond films and otherwise I recommend the posted article.

FieldsMan wrote:

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

We have a bone to pick.

The reason why I thought they were called Bond girls is because their are like 40 of them.  Would a more appropriate term be 'a woman in a Bond movie that sleeps with Bond'?

Do me a favour and don't say this to a feminist.
That is even worse.
Your description is exactly what objectification is about. 40 women are defined by the fact that they have slept with Bond. You do not say that Domino grieves her brother and that Vesper was a double-agent etc. etc. etc.
Feminism means equality for women, right? These women are defined by the fact that they have slept with Bond. If Bond does not want them, they are no-one. This is against equality because the girls have to be pretty enough to be chosen by Bond. That is the equivalent of a women who is defined by her husband. "Mrs Herman Smith". The wife of Herman Smith does not even have a name, because she does not have her own identity. She is simply the wife of Mr Smith. And the same applies to Domino & Co when they become Bond's girl.
This is a question of how you define identity.
And the message behind "Bond girl" is that you have to find a strong handsome man to be someone...I mean, you are one among 40, but that's all a woman can wish for.  

I am not sure if you can actually turn the scenario around. Because if you have one handsome woman who has slept with 40 boys, do you know what people will say what she is? A slut.
Bond is considered cool because of his multitude of sexual partners, but a woman who has slept with more men than she has fingers to count them is most likely despised.

FieldsMan wrote:

I hadn't expected anything less.

I should have specified, so   was not obvious enough.
This is not about CR. This is about you telling me what I have to do.

Oh okay.  I thought that the term Bond girl was used as a description as oppose to women in the movies that do not like sleep with Bond like M or Moneypenny for example.  I didn't think it was meant to objectify.  I mean there is the term Bond villain to describe a villain James Bond does battle with so I thought if the term 'Bond villain' is okay to use without objectification than the term 'Bond girl', could be thought of the same way, and is meant as just a descriptive term, without any objectification intended.  Plus I don't see how other people think of Bond girls as needing Bond.  They are just called that because they become sexually active with him, but they don't need him and are perfectly fine on their own I feel.  I never thought of the term as identity-less.

As for not being able to view it the other way around with a female secret agent sleeping with 40 men throughout an action movie series, I feel that is a double standard, saying it cannot be seen the other way around.  If feminism is about equality than people should be okay if it were the other way around and not view it as the action hero woman being a 'slut'.  I feel if it cannot be viewed the other way around cause of a double standard, than that's other peoples' double standard and not mine.

I guess I just feel the issue is a double standard, cause if Bond were a female character who had a lot of 'Bond guys', you wouldn't have a bunch of people watching the movies and say the men are being objectified and do not have their own identity.

Salomé wrote:

Why should Bond be feminist to begin with?

Cuz Babs is pointing her thimble at him

ironpony wrote:

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

Kath wrote:

ironpony wrote:

But aren't the Bond actors objectified as well?  I mean Daniel Craig coming out of the ocean looking all muscular, or how they make him look all handsome in that tuxedo.

As for the Bond girl actresses choosing to pose for Playboy, that was there decisions, and it's not like it was in their contracts to do so, was it?

You still miss the point that Bond is Bond whereas the girl is "Bond's girl".
As a category, the Bond girl does not have a name of her own but is only referred to by using his name. Her existence as a Bond girl is dependant on Bond's existence. If you apply the rule that a Bond film needs two Bond girls, as I have read it in here, you blow feminism sky-high. Two women are dependant in their identity of one man.  
You can never reconcile that with feminism. Feminism is about women having their own identity.
The girls are objecitified in as far as they are robbed of their individualism and only function as "Bond girls" - as props.
What function does a Bond girl have? Bond is the hero and the girls...are...let's call it "decoration".
Now you will throw examples and bits and pieces at me. No. I am talking about the category, the function and the established understanding of what a "Bond girl" is. Whatever EON will do nowadays, they will never be able to change that so quickly. That is part of our cultural memory.

And, in the scene you mention there is not only a half-naked Craig, but also a half-naked Solange riding on a horse.  
Few franchises are so strongly connected to the Playboy as Bond is.
And, come on, the probably most famous depiction of a Bond girl is a with gold overpainted Gil.
You cannot add up one shot of Craig against decades of history of Bond girls. And what is a stronger objectification than making a statue of gold of her? A material object of worth? Decoration, as I said above.

We have not talked about violence against women yet. You know that this is an issue in the history of Bond films and otherwise I recommend the posted article.

FieldsMan wrote:

I feel Craig in CR was more objectified than any Bond girl since Mary Goodnight.

We have a bone to pick.

The reason why I thought they were called Bond girls is because their are like 40 of them.  Would a more appropriate term be 'a woman in a Bond movie that sleeps with Bond'?

Do me a favour and don't say this to a feminist.
That is even worse.
Your description is exactly what objectification is about. 40 women are defined by the fact that they have slept with Bond. You do not say that Domino grieves her brother and that Vesper was a double-agent etc. etc. etc.
Feminism means equality for women, right? These women are defined by the fact that they have slept with Bond. If Bond does not want them, they are no-one. This is against equality because the girls have to be pretty enough to be chosen by Bond. That is the equivalent of a women who is defined by her husband. "Mrs Herman Smith". The wife of Herman Smith does not even have a name, because she does not have her own identity. She is simply the wife of Mr Smith. And the same applies to Domino & Co when they become Bond's girl.
This is a question of how you define identity.
And the message behind "Bond girl" is that you have to find a strong handsome man to be someone...I mean, you are one among 40, but that's all a woman can wish for.  

I am not sure if you can actually turn the scenario around. Because if you have one handsome woman who has slept with 40 boys, do you know what people will say what she is? A slut.
Bond is considered cool because of his multitude of sexual partners, but a woman who has slept with more men than she has fingers to count them is most likely despised.

FieldsMan wrote:

I hadn't expected anything less.

I should have specified, so   was not obvious enough.
This is not about CR. This is about you telling me what I have to do.

Oh okay.  I thought that the term Bond girl was used as a description as oppose to women in the movies that do not like sleep with Bond like M or Moneypenny for example.  I didn't think it was meant to objectify.  I mean there is the term Bond villain to describe a villain James Bond does battle with so I thought if the term 'Bond villain' is okay to use without objectification than the term 'Bond girl', could be thought of the same way, and is meant as just a descriptive term, without any objectification intended.  Plus I don't see how other people think of Bond girls as needing Bond.  They are just called that because they become sexually active with him, but they don't need him and are perfectly fine on their own I feel.  I never thought of the term as identity-less.

As for not being able to view it the other way around with a female secret agent sleeping with 40 men throughout an action movie series, I feel that is a double standard, saying it cannot be seen the other way around.  If feminism is about equality than people should be okay if it were the other way around and not view it as the action hero woman being a 'slut'.  I feel if it cannot be viewed the other way around cause of a double standard, than that's other peoples' double standard and not mine.

I guess I just feel the issue is a double standard, cause if Bond were a female character who had a lot of 'Bond guys', you wouldn't have a bunch of people watching the movies and say the men are being objectified and do not have their own identity.

I did not want to criticise you and I apology if you feel as if I did.
You asked me why feminists might object to Bond and I have tried to answer your question.
Some people hate Bond and you cannot change that.
That's why I have said that some women might feel offended when you say Bond girls are "40 women who have slept with Bond".

I mean the cultural impact of the term "Bond girl". There is much more hubbub about the actress playing the Bond girl than the actor / actress playing the villain. Remember how much media attention Belucci got.
How can a Bond girl be a Bond girl without Bond? I don't get that...A Bond girl without Bond is, well, a girl.
We are talking about the term "Bond girl".
But do we agree that "Bond girl" is a term which means much more than just "a women who had an affair with Bond"? It is a beauty standard. What kind of actresses are casted? And once and actress is casted, she is considered as one of the most beautiful women ever. That is what a "Bond girl" is. It is not just a term to describe a certain type of female characters. There are strong expectations that they must meet beauty standards. I cannot be convinced that this was in any way otherwise.
They are....eye candy.
And the moment a woman is considered eye candy she is objectified.

Does it make a difference if it is your double-standard or that of other people? I am thinking of film reviews and box office numbers...

Let me add that the Bond boys will be extremely handsome, have square faces, the most beautiful eyes, and firm stomach muscles. Women will pine over them and that does not make you feel bad in a way?
In one of my other groups one guy wasn't even cool when a woman expressed her admiration of Craig.
I think it was actually several men who were not cool about it because we were bombarded with bikini pictures of Bond girls for weeks.
Some of you are not cool that Craig plays Bond because you claim that Broccoli favours him because of his good looks.
Well, Craig is handsome, so, what's wrong with him playing Bond when has got the looks?
I have a friend who watches Bond because she finds Craig attractive and some of you want to rob her of her enjoyment.  
There is most likely a target group for that beach shot in CR and it seems to have worked.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to give off the impression that I was offended, as I am not :).

I am just surprised by some of the reactions here, as I thought in this day and age, as a lot of guys would not care it were the other way around, and if Bond were a female, a lot of guys wouldn't care if her men were referred to as 'Bond guys'.

People wouldn't be saying things like "hey, they are called 'Bond guys', which implies that the men have no identities, and what not. People would just assume they are called that because they are Bond's guys, and so I feel that with Bond girls, people are being extra sensitive about it, cause they are women, as oppose to if they were male characters.

ironpony wrote:

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to give off the impression that I was offended, as I am not :).

Good.

ironpony wrote:

and so I feel that with Bond girls, people are being extra sensitive about it, cause they are women, as oppose to if they were male characters.

That's probably true.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Fans of tortured female logic will relish this love-hate critique of Ian Fleming:

'Bond says to his host, “The only problem with beautiful Negro women is that they know anything about birth control. I hope he managed to stay out of that sort of trouble.” While that is an endorsement of contraceptives, that segment bears further scrutiny. It is at once a racist, sexist, offensive thing to say, and eye-opening progressive.'
From Secret Agency Man: How Bond and Fleming Feed my Feminism
by Frieda Toth

https://literary007.com/2018/01/11/secret-agency-man-how-bond-and-fleming-feed-my-feminism/

Joking apart, those who prefer the books to the frankly often-crap films will find that literary007.com has some worthwhile content.

This is a very good read, thank you for sharing! I especially love the comparison to Harry Potter (which novels I happen to dislike):

Frieda Toth wrote:

For all that Bond sometimes is rescued by his women, Bond is good at his job, better, in fact, than Rosa Klebb or Vesper Lynd, which is largely why he survives thriller after thriller and they don’t. Bond women tend to be in other lines of work; he can’t do their job and they can’t do his. (Can you see Bond as an Acrobat?)
And it is this fact that makes Hermione so annoyingly anti-feminist: in every way she is better than Harry.  She is better with magic, harder working, more compassionate. Yet, for all her superiority, the book is about Harry.  Why is it about Harry when he is so inferior to Hermione? And this is a work of fiction, of fantasy, J.K. (who used her initials because of fear that no boy would read a book by a woman) Rowling made choices in her stories and her heroes. She chose to make the boy inferior to the girl, but to make the boy the hero.

Yes, this is a great blog, I agree. If I am not mixing things up, it is run by a very nice person, too. It's highly recommendable. But I had missed this article.

Well, there is one about "Jane Bond", but it is only a review:

Hagen, K. (2018). Atomic Blonde, Neue Deutsche Welle, and Jane Bond . International Journal of James Bond Studies , 1 ( 2 ) . DOI: http://doi.org/10.24877/35