vhbj

x

I read all that in Julia Gillard's voice. I have a severe migraine now.

I can't really decide if that piece is meant seriously or if it is some elaborate satire.

Salomé wrote:

I can't really decide if that piece is meant seriously or if it is some elaborate satire.

I can believe it, especially when these articles misrepresent how scenes play out, like the bit about Severine showing no interest in Bond when it's made clear that she is. I think SF pushed it a bit but it never went overboard like all these whiners claim. And God forbid a Bond film to have the audacity to be male fantasy! Cry me a river.

Two other similar blog posts/articles.

http://reciperifle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/bond-villain.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/james-bonds-new-not-so-progressive-mommy-complex/265010/

Quote :

Are such lurid fantasies really deployed to protect innocence? Or is the luridness a goal in itself, and the innocence merely the excuse? Perhaps the answer lies in one of this film's entirely old-school Bond moments, involving a striking, morally ambiguous damsel-in-distress. Séverine (Bérénice Marlohe) seems sexy and dangerous—but Bond deduces that she is in fact a sex-slave who has been brutalized since her early teens, and that she is in fear for her life. The short conversation between Craig and Marlohe is perhaps the most realized sequence of the movie: The actress conveys both terror and vulnerability, and Craig comes across as concerned, competent, and empathetic.

But then, of course, Bond slips into the room of this sexually traumatized woman and casually screws her. Shortly thereafter, she is brutally murdered in front of him; his only reaction is a callous joke. I guess you could argue that Bond was putting up a tough façade—but there's little evidence for that in the film, which utterly forgets her existence and her trauma the instant they have served their purpose. Séverine is just a body and a plot point, there to lend weight to Craig's perspicuity, sexiness, and imperviousness.

Here's an excellent reply to the last one:

Nicole Elizabeth wrote:

As a feminist woman, I found this argument ridiculous. I've seen the film as my finely tuned fem radar never signaled once. In fact I loved it. Yes, he slept with a lot of women. No, none of them meant anything to him. He's Bond. He wasn't slapping their ass, striking them across the face, or raping them. He was just having some sex. And aside from his little beach rendezvous of which we didn't see the start... the other two women initiated the events. Women are just as capable and interested in having meaningless sex as men. And as for the "maternal M"... I found it natural, and realistic. Long standing workplace relationships can develop that tone. I consider one of my bosses to be a second mother to me, and another teacher, a father figure. These are just realities of humanity. I found no offense in them. I appreciate the thought and intelligence you bring to the argument, but I think you're reading into this film, that which doesn't exist. The most offensive thing you can assume is that women don't have an equal understanding of social realities.

c

Erica Ambler wrote:

Quote :

If you like my site and want to support the cause of woman-friendly art and/or help keep my cats fed: here’s a button to donate by Paypal.

I'd be happy to feed her pussy.

v

Erica Ambler wrote:

She believes in separatism yet can't spell it.

I believe in separatism. Seperatism of the legs.

If the Severine thing is enough to make their heads spin, there would be as nuclear meltdown if they read the last chapter of Goldinger with Bond "curing" a lesbian.

b

I read that too. I guess they're right, Bond is more criminal than a woman that knowingly asssists a terrorist that plans on murdering a town full of American soldiers and innocent families with a nuclear bomb, because he sticks his dick in her. The poor woman, how can Bond live with himself?

This basically sums up their bleating:

I don't condone or approve of rape in any form or fashion.

Whether it's a man raping a woman or a woman raping a man or a man raping a man or a woman raping a woman and believe me, all four are real occurrences, the act itself is totally unacceptable.

Rape is no longer an act perpetrated by a man on a woman.

But we have become a society (and I am not defending rapists of both male and female gender) where so many people are so quick to accuse someone of rape before getting all the facts in.

There was an article this past week about a case here in the U.S.

A woman accused a man of rape and it turned out her story was not real but now the man is being labeled as a rapist and he hasn't even been found guilty by a jury.

Let me see if I can find it.

Erica Ambler wrote:

She believes in separatism yet can't spell it.

The democracy experiment has gone on long enough. No votes for j7 or women with cats. That includes you, Rave.

But I have four cats, not one of which rejoices in any kind of fluffy woo-woo name, and I can change your oil, gap your plugs, and strip your carbs whether four wheels or two.

I claim exemption on the grounds that my IQ is higher than my bra size. Which considering my bra size is not to be sniffed at. Not without a valid credit card anyway.

b

Testers are usually extended, and exhausted quite satisfactorily. I've never had to give a refund.

Of course, that's just me resorting to sexist bimbo stereotype to fit into the male dominated bourgeoisie prevalent on this board. Or something like that.

Or I could be pre-menstrual. Or in need of a shag.

(actually - I'm neither...... thanks for asking ;) )

I hate women telling me what I'm supposed to think. In fact, I hate anyone telling me what to think, whether they have bollocks or ovaries - or indeed both.