Previous Debate: Bond wearing a dress: Acceptable?

Did Bond wearing a dress in last year's "Equals" ad bother you?

Or, not so much "bother" you, did it just seem wrong in any way or just badly executed, misjudged, a step too far, something Bond shouldn't be getting involved with, etc? Is it a sign of a more overly PC/political Bond yet to come in the hands of the current producers?

Or were you absolutely fine with the whole thing?

Discuss and vote....



PS, can a mod or M alter the Tarantino debate title to "Previous Debate"? Cheers.

I thought it was stupid. But I got over it. To me it's nothing more than a misguided side project for Babs, I don't think of it being part of the film series as much as those old featurrttes with Q talking to audiences about the gadgets.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, reprinted in full from my blog:

Why James Bond is Not a Rational Target for Feminism

On this, International Women's Day, an ad was released by EON Productions, makers of the James Bond films, who have not produced any Bond material since 2008 and will not produce any more until 2012 or 2013.

This is the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM

Pretty clever, yeah? Using James Bond, long a symbol of misogynistic (not to mention imperialist) power, as a toll to argue for feminist equality. Bringing him down to size by making him wear drag, which humiliates him.

Except it isn't really. The problems with this ad are so many, so legion, that I'm compelled to devote a patented longwinded Rowerowefightthepower rant against them.

First, I would argue that the biggest complaint against the feminist movement is the notion that it is combative, vindictive, and anti-men -- that it seeks to surplant a male dominated society with a female dominated society as revenge. This fear has led many men to dismiss, ignore or even fight the feminist movement. This is clearly not the intent of this ad, which is obviously to promote EQUALITY between the sexes. I agree that this is a good intent. But the content of the ad does not support this intent. One important distinction to note is that this is not an ad featuring Daniel Craig and Judi Dench, it is explicitly an ad featuring James Bond and his superior M (the head of the British Secret Service). So we have a woman in a superior position berating a man (who is her employee) and placing blame on his gender for the misfortunes of her own gender, and forcing him to wear women's clothing in the full knowledge that this places him in a humiliating position. The ad intends to show a humourous juxtaposition -- instead the message comes across as angry, bitter and vindictive, especially in the strong, forceful tone of voice Dench uses in her performance. I have nothing against Dench being strong, but I think that the image of Dench as M alone, as strong woman in a position of power, does more for the movement than the humiliation of one of her operatives (by her). Lead by example and inspiration, not shame and the fostering of ill-will. Imagine if the ad were just Dench, sitting in a chair, as the camera zooms in on her slowly, making the same statements, but bereft of their connnection to Bond. I argue that this is more effective, and confuses the issue less. A woman in a position of power dressing down a man under her does not do much to argue the idea that women are still opressed.

My second issue with the ad is the way it presents its satistics. I will not argue the validity of the numbers themselves, that is outside my field of expertise or ability to prove or disprove. But I do argue about the way they are presented. Bond is the only figure shown to us, the camera zooming in on him as M lists off how many women wordlwide do not have an education, are sexually assaulted, are murdered, and so on and so forth. M mentions that 70 million girls worldwide are deprived of education, as the camera shows us Bond. The implication is that Bond (or what he represents) is to blame for this state of affairs. So what does Bond represent? Bond is an agent of MI6, Britain's external intelligence agency, he represents western, male, authoritarian power. But the millions of girls not getting schooling are not in the UK or the US or any of their allies -- they are in the third world nations (where, surprise surprise, millions of BOYS also do not receive an education) or in the Muslim states were women are oppressed as a matter of accepted social tradition. Speaking of those Muslim nations, they are largely responsible for the massive worldwide statistics of female oppression -- and these states, their regimes, and their policies are the exact targets of the organization Bond works for. So blaming Bond is misrepresentative, unfair and inaccurate.

Finally, I must make a general point about the use of Bond that speaks less to feminism and its message, and more to the James Bond character himself and his legacy. This ad is not a third party construction using Bond as a target in general -- its a specific ad featuring specifically the real actors currently playing James Bond and M and produced with the full knowledge and participation of the company which makes his films. Now, it is well known that Bond is not a feminist character, nor was his creator Ian Fleming much of a women's libber. Bond was a creation of the fifties, so he is a hard drinking, heavy smoking, womanizer -- the fiftie's man's man. These aspects have been toned down over time to fit modern sensibilities but it is clear that as he was created Bond does not represent feminism. While this makes him a good ironic target for a feminist ad, we must realize this was all done by the rights holders of the character -- who must know he represents misogyny because that's the ad's point and therefore know the ad is against the principles of the character and yet knowingly let the character be used against his own principles. This does not bode well, showing as it does that the current owners of Bond do not agree with his values or support them, explaining perhaps why the Bond films have not held their former luster for sometime. Its like al-Qaeda agreeing to do a video supporting religious diversity -- you know that the values of the organization have been compromised and no longer stand for what they once did. And even if they do want to change Bond into something that fights for feminism, then that's exactly what they should do -- show him fighting for feminism, not as a target of it. Have Bond address the audience with the stats, even acknowledging that the character himself hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the way he's treated some women in the past, before making a hardened case to all of the men out there who mistreat women that there's nothing masculine about doing such a cruel thing. That way, there's no side issue, all we come away thinking about are the words Craig has spoken as James Bond. This is your hero and ours, he is sold to us on the basis that he is a hero -- show him as a hero, not as the villain.

I agree that a woman working the same job as a man should earn as much as a man. I agree that she should not be fired as punitive action against becoming pregnant. I agree she has the right to her own body and her own use of that body. But I believe these ideals can be promoted through positive, strong (and strongly feminine) portrayals of women, to role model for young girls everywhere, NOT by humiliating masculine symbols, fermenting resentment between men and women, and placing blame for the opression of women on those who are not responsible for it.

That was a very good entry Sykes.

The fairer question would've been: is Bond wearing a dress a big deal or not?

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

And even if they do want to change Bond into something that fights for feminism, then that's exactly what they should do -- show him fighting for feminism, not as a target of it. Have Bond address the audience with the stats, even acknowledging that the character himself hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the way he's treated some women in the past, before making a hardened case to all of the men out there who mistreat women that there's nothing masculine about doing such a cruel thing. That way, there's no side issue, all we come away thinking about are the words Craig has spoken as James Bond. This is your hero and ours, he is sold to us on the basis that he is a hero -- show him as a hero, not as the villain.

Very well put.

You have to ask yourself, what kind of response were they looking for when they released the ad? Will guys care to listen to the message? Probably not, considering their masculine hero isn't allowed a voice. Will females? Maybe, and they might get a laugh out of seeing Bond in drag. But they're definitely not getting a positive message out of it.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

And even if they do want to change Bond into something that fights for feminism, then that's exactly what they should do -- show him fighting for feminism, not as a target of it. Have Bond address the audience with the stats, even acknowledging that the character himself hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the way he's treated some women in the past, before making a hardened case to all of the men out there who mistreat women that there's nothing masculine about doing such a cruel thing. That way, there's no side issue, all we come away thinking about are the words Craig has spoken as James Bond. This is your hero and ours, he is sold to us on the basis that he is a hero -- show him as a hero, not as the villain.

Very well put.

You have to ask yourself, what kind of response were they looking for when they released the ad? Will guys care to listen to the message? Probably not, considering their masculine hero isn't allowed a voice. Will females? Maybe, and they might get a laugh out of seeing Bond in drag. But they're definitely not getting a positive message out of it.

Feminists can attempt whatever they bloody well please. I personally don't give a dam'. I do care, however, when Eon truckles to the feministas or worse, leads the charge of feminizing Bond as we saw in the ad.

Regardless of what one thinks of feminism--and I think most of it is crap--Bond is not a feminist, never has been and never should be. Transmogrifying Bond into Paul Haggis is a betrayal of Bond's very essence and I would expect any serious Bond fan to oppose that betrayal with every molecule of his being.

Nope.

If you think the ad was appropriate and/or acceptable, then I suggest reading the novels, or re-reading them.

Babs and Co. needs to stop using the series and the main character as a tool to further their PC agenda.

I am curious Khanners as to what your definition of Feminism is...

Salomoppers,

From an academic standpoint there are two types of feminism. The first, equalitarian feminism, holds that women should be equal before the law, and, all other circumstances being equal, should be paid the same as men for doing identical work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this form of feminism, and I support it.

The second form of feminism is gender feminism. This more radical version holds that "gender" is socially constructed, and in a manner that harms women. Gender feminists believe there is no fundamental, essential (read genetic) difference between men and women. They believe all difference is merely apparent rather than real. As such, they seek to deconstruct gender by insisting that men behave like women and women like men. Masculinity and femininity are to be jettisoned, and once this is accomplished, the human race will live in an androgynous utopia. Ultimately, gender feminism is an attack on men, and I oppose it completely.

I suspect Babs is a bit of a gender feminist. Putting Bond in a dress is a very direct way of stripping him of his masculinity. Having the goddess Dench browbeat a mute Bond with trumped up stats about the evils of men and the oppression of women further degrades Bond and emasculates him. That this exercise is enacted against the ultimate man heightens its significance.

Bond wearing a dress is like Mario in a non-Nintendo console.

Unacceptable.

James Bond should not be a whipping boy for Babs' personal political agenda.

Incidentally, shouldn't this forum be in the Bond rather than the Beyond section?

That's for next week's debate (or not, considering it's been moved).

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Why James Bond is Not a Rational Target for Feminism

Nice post.

Your thoughts seem largely based on the assumption that putting Bond in a dress humiliates him, and that the camera's singular focus villainizes him. I don't see it that way. M doesn't accuse him of anything, or "cut him down to size" - in fact, the ad's use of Bond attests to his enduring status as a masculine icon. Bond in drag is meant to be a humorous and eye-catching attempt by our hero to understand what it's like to be a woman.

Obviously that attempt fails, so he takes the wig and earrings off - note also that he's taking what M says quite seriously. Contrast for effect (as it's hard to take the visual seriously).

I think the biggest problem with the ad is Dench's tone, which does indeed slip into condescension a couple times. I'm also a little bothered by the stats being rattled off (specifically the lack of a source), but I don't feel like she's blaming Bond for them. And if Bond dressing in drag strips him of his manliness, it begs the question: what exactly makes Bond masculine? Is it his short hair, or the designer suit?

Don't get me wrong: the ad would likely work better without the dress. But it's not the inhumane desecration of the character some make it out to be. It's simply a cheap stunt for attention (and thus a wider audience) on the producers' part.

Could the ad have been done better? Yes. Does it offend me? No. And I doubt Fleming's doing push-ups or anything in his grave over it. At the end of the day, the cinematic incarnation belongs to Barbara/MGW, and they can do whatever they please with it. I don't like the thought, but the producers owe us nothing. If you want pure, authentic Bond, unaltered by the agendas of others, read the books.

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Transmogrifying Bond into Paul Haggis is a betrayal of Bond's very essence and I would expect any serious Bond fan to oppose that betrayal with every molecule of his being.

Khanners, please consider me opposed and with all molecules!8)

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

The second form of feminism is gender feminism. This more radical version holds that "gender" is socially constructed, and in a manner that harms women. Gender feminists believe there is no fundamental, essential (read genetic) difference between men and women. They believe all difference is merely apparent rather than real. As such, they seek to deconstruct gender by insisting that men behave like women and women like men. Masculinity and femininity are to be jettisoned, and once this is accomplished, the human race will live in an androgynous utopia. Ultimately, gender feminism is an attack on men, and I oppose it completely.

This sort of feminism is so whacked that clearly its imported direct from Pluto along with most other leftist activist movements. We earthlings must resist with all our humanity and with all our molecules.:)

CJB wrote:

Unacceptable.
James Bond should not be a whipping boy for Babs' personal political agenda.

Babs is clearly an agent of Pluto. I think Craig has been hauled up to the mother ship a few times, maybe against his will, but it does seem they've got to him somewhat.

I'd say that putting James Bond in a dress is nothing but a form of humiliation, considering the essence of the character.

Alternatively, I can only think of it as an implication that James Bond is a cross dresser, gay, or transgender. And I don't think he's been taken to that level... yet.

They should have stuffed his shirt with basketballs, at least. :roll:

Sleeper wrote:

That's for next week's debate (or not, considering it's been moved).

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Why James Bond is Not a Rational Target for Feminism

Bond in drag is meant to be a humorous and eye-catching attempt by our hero to understand what it's like to be a woman.

The ad is more serious than a United Nations condemnation of Israeli "human rights abuses." It has not a scintilla of humor in it. Kind of like QOS.

I saw Cowboys and Aliens today. Craig was indeed taken up to the mothership in this film.
I think the movie is trying to tell us something.
btw C&A is one of the dullest, least engaging film's I have seen in a long time.
Should get some razzie nominations I would think.

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

The ad is more serious than a United Nations condemnation of Israeli "human rights abuses." It has not a scintilla of humor in it.

Personally I can't help but laugh at the way his heels scrape across the floor.

Doesn't look like we're getting much of a debate here. Ah well, can't say I didn't try.

Well, let us just say the humor wasn't intentional. Although one might laugh in order to avoid crying.

This debate seems rather spent now, and has been running for almost a fortnight. Anyone have a good idea for a new debate? If so, please don't hesitate to step up, just start a new topic and post your question.

This section has been a very welcome addition to the forums, it would be a shame for it to dry up.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

First, I would argue that the biggest complaint against the feminist movement is the notion that it is combative, vindictive, and anti-men -- that it seeks to surplant a male dominated society with a female dominated society as revenge. This fear has led many men to dismiss, ignore or even fight the feminist movement. This is clearly not the intent of this ad, which is obviously to promote EQUALITY between the sexes. I agree that this is a good intent. But the content of the ad does not support this intent.

And the ad doesn't even define what equality means to them. M chastises Bond for women still facing a glass ceiling and not earning as much pay as men (which is debatable), but nowhere in there is the acknowledgement that a lot of women don't get to the upper echelons of money and management because they post-pone or abandon their careers to have children. Instead, the advert just relentlessly attacks Bond for all of the problems of the world.


I have nothing against Dench being strong, but I think that the image of Dench as M alone, as strong woman in a position of power, does more for the movement than the humiliation of one of her operatives (by her).

:cheers: Excellent point.

I argue that this is more effective, and confuses the issue less. A woman in a position of power dressing down a man under her does not do much to argue the idea that women are still opressed.

And it does absolutely nothing but reinforce the stereotypes (or fears) that the feminist agenda is meant not to raise up the fortunes of women by creating a more fair work environment, but that the feminist agenda is about changing men, changing their behaviors, and trying to correct the inherently bad nature of a man.

My second issue with the ad is the way it presents its satistics. I will not argue the validity of the numbers themselves, that is outside my field of expertise or ability to prove or disprove. But I do argue about the way they are presented. Bond is the only figure shown to us, the camera zooming in on him as M lists off how many women wordlwide do not have an education, are sexually assaulted, are murdered, and so on and so forth. M mentions that 70 million girls worldwide are deprived of education, as the camera shows us Bond. The implication is that Bond (or what he represents) is to blame for this state of affairs. So what does Bond represent? Bond is an agent of MI6, Britain's external intelligence agency, he represents western, male, authoritarian power. But the millions of girls not getting schooling are not in the UK or the US or any of their allies -- they are in the third world nations (where, surprise surprise, millions of BOYS also do not receive an education) or in the Muslim states were women are oppressed as a matter of accepted social tradition. Speaking of those Muslim nations, they are largely responsible for the massive worldwide statistics of female oppression -- and these states, their regimes, and their policies are the exact targets of the organization Bond works for. So blaming Bond is misrepresentative, unfair and inaccurate.

Right on! I brought this point up consistently at the other place, only to be assailed for being a bigot or uneducated. Who exactly is Bond stopping from getting an education or a job or equal rights? You'll never hear or see Barbara Broccoli put out a PSA condemning Muslim nations for the poor treatment of their women because that would show "intolerance", and as Americans, Britons, and westerners in general, we are taught from the cradle to the grave that we have to be tolerant of other people's intolerance.

Other problems I had with the PSA include the idea that it patronized women rather than spoke to their genuine concerns. For example, Craig puts on the dress, wig, heels and stockings, and then sighs in despair and walks off, as if he can now truly understand what it feels like to be a woman by having simply put on a dress.

I'm not sure if Barbara would've pulled this stunt had her father or mother still been alive. She has disgraced the family name and Bond legacy with that PSA, and she better gives us a great BOND-23 or there will be hell to pay.

Mr. Brown wrote:

I'd say that putting James Bond in a dress is nothing but a form of humiliation, considering the essence of the character.

But notice that Bond "gets it", sighs, and walks away after having put on the dress, as if somehow he can now better empathize with women and their "plight" after having worn a dress. I guess he'd be better able to understand women's health issues as well if he'd use a tampon. But I digress.....

Quote :

Alternatively, I can only think of it as an implication that James Bond is a cross dresser, gay, or transgender. And I don't think he's been taken to that level... yet.

As you said, "yet". It's coming. And I said so vociferously in other forums, I won't be a fan when it does. I will walk away if James Bond is made any of the following three things: #1 Non-white #2 Female #3 Gay or bisexual.

I have stated many times I'll for EON expanding the Bond universe and creating spin-off MI6 characters that would have their own movies. You could have a female 009, a gay 005, a black 003...but don't change James Bond. Daniel Craig represents all the diversity I want out of the series.

The ad contains a lot of statistical bullshit. In the UK women are more likely to go to university than men, while men are more likely to be long-term unemployed. As these facts don't support the story a load of stats from third world countries have been brought into play.

Compare like with like, people, or I might suspect feminism is another badly disguised supremacist movement.

EDIT: I'm interested to see a third of votes cast in favour. Clearly Western men deserve everything they get.

Avarice wrote:

The ad contains a lot of statistical bullshit. In the UK women are more likely to go to university than men, while men are more likely to be long-term unemployed. As these facts don't support the story a load of stats from third world countries have been brought into play.

As if it is Britain or America's fault that those countries are right, third-world shame-holes.

Look, there's not a sexist bone in my body. I'm all for giving a skirt the opportunity to do the same job, at the same standards, at the same rate of pay as a man. And since I'm a card-carrying, honorary member of the National Association of Gals I can't be a sexist; my best friend is a dame I want to see more women be successful as women, not as women acting like men.