How a Feminist Can Like James Bond

Can a feminist actually like James Bond? Yes, she can.  I love her statement.
And she's taught an undergraduate course about Bond at university in a Women's Gender Studies programme. And it turns out that many of the female students like Bond as well.

Funnel, Lisa. "For His Eyes Only? Thoughts on Female Scholarship and Fandom of the Bond Franchise" Fan Phenomena: James Bond. Accessed on: Academia.edu

http://www.academia.edu/8670849/For_His_Eyes_Only_Thoughts_on_Female_Scholarship_and_Fandom_of_the_Bond_Franchise

I'm not exactly sure how a feminist analysis of Bond can be positive.
Of course feminism now means so many different things to different people I might be wrong.

The point is not that she comes to a positive result, but that she likes Bond despite the negative results. But, most mainstream cinema employs the very same gender stereotypes, even chick flicks. But even though, the point is that she likes Bond.
I know that she's also an editor in Bond research. And yes, that is exactly her point, she says that "Feminism" has become the other "f"-word.
It's simply that not all feminist automatically hate Bond.
It's worth reading.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

It's worth reading.

No, it's not. Female academics have created a world where they're only read by other women.

A Ghetto of One's Own (Making)

How can you prove that?

Kath wrote:

The point is not that she comes to a positive result, but that she likes Bond despite the negative results. But, most mainstream cinema employs the very same gender stereotypes, even chick flicks. But even though, the point is that she likes Bond.
I know that she's also an editor in Bond research. And yes, that is exactly her point, she says that "Feminism" has become the other "f"-word.
It's simply that not all feminist automatically hate Bond.
It's worth reading.

But in that case, there is nothing feminist about their love of Bond. So why frame it within that point of view?
I'm sure individual feminists can love just about any artistic impression, but that does not mean that piece of art then becomes feminist itself.

Isn't the James Bond series run by a feminist?

Isn't James Bond a feminist now?

FieldsMan wrote:

Isn't the James Bond series run by a feminist?

I recall Craig in a dress

x

Salomé wrote:

But in that case, there is nothing feminist about their love of Bond. So why frame it within that point of view?
I'm sure individual feminists can love just about any artistic impression, but that does not mean that piece of art then becomes feminist itself.

She doesn't frame it in that point of view. She comes from the other side of the argument. Her issue is that people consider it odd that a woman and even more an academic feminist can like Bond at all. ("You know that's just misogynic crap? And it's not meant for women for starters? Shouldn't you of all people know any better? Can't you just burn a bra or so, something we can understand?") Do you really, really, really think women are not criticised for Bond? That womanhood magically protects you?
She has never said that Bond becomes feminist material throughout the process.
This was written for female Bond researchers.

FieldsMan wrote:

Isn't the James Bond series run by a feminist?

Isn't James Bond a feminist now?

I smell resistance when we're fighting for the same cause. When do you see that Bond feminists are not against you? I do not know enough about Barbara Broccoli to comment upon that. Just, as Lisa Funnel said: "not every woman is a feminist and not every feminist a woman". "Feminism" is related to power and I do not see that women are ruling the screen of 007; so I'd say that Broccoli is not a (how was Funnel's expression?) "bra-burning man-hater". It really depends on how you define "feminist".
As for your second point, in context of the films I'd say definitely yes. We have strong candidates for a feminist approach there (Vesper, M, Camille). For Bond himself...see below.

FieldsMan wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

I recall Craig in a dress

Isn't James Bond a feminist now?

I am not sure if cross-dressing counts...Considering how Craig-Bond reduces the number of female MI6 staff I am not convinced (Vesper dead, Fields dead, Monneypenny denigrated to desk work...).

EricaAmbler wrote:

I don't have to. It’s my opinion, which is subjective by definition.

So here's the thing. When I give you raw data, you say figures don’t matter. When I give an opinion, you tell me to prove it. Do you understand the basic principles of academic rigour? The difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Well, last time it was your opinion, too. Namely that if only a majority is bothered by heteronormativity we can safely ignore it. I say, as do many, even if only a majority is harassed, it still has to be stopped.
I was actually thinking you were referring to her seminar which was mostly set up by girls because it was part of the mentioned programme in female gender studies, which means, two generations of feminists discuss Bond. I have given this thought and I think it may be problematic if Bond feminism means that women create their own exclusive Bond discourse (you also need your own feminism then, but that is another story). I simply do know that Bond research has been kick-started last year and so I can give you the data that contributions for Bond research in general are mixed.
You can also search academia.edu and it should yield similar results.
If men do not read feminist articles, however, that is not our fault, is it? If you refuse to enter the ghetto, well. But I honestly do not think that there is a ghetto. And no-one wants a ghetto. And not all female Bond researchers write about feminism and even so if they do, that does not mean that they do so exclusively. Lisa Funnel has also written other articles, for instance.

Kath wrote:

Salomé wrote:

But in that case, there is nothing feminist about their love of Bond. So why frame it within that point of view?
I'm sure individual feminists can love just about any artistic impression, but that does not mean that piece of art then becomes feminist itself.

She doesn't frame it in that point of view. She comes from the other side of the argument. Her issue is that people consider it odd that a woman and even more an academic feminist can like Bond at all. ("You know that's just misogynic crap? And it's not meant for women for starters? Shouldn't you of all people know any better? Can't you just burn a bra or so, something we can understand?") Do you really, really, really think women are not criticised for Bond? That womanhood magically protects you?
She has never said that Bond becomes feminist material throughout the process.
This was written for female Bond researchers.

I've always been a Bond fan and never faced any criticism for it. Frankly, I would try to avoid the kind of people who would criticize me for my choice of movies/music/TV shows/whatever.

Salomé wrote:

Kath wrote:

Salomé wrote:

But in that case, there is nothing feminist about their love of Bond. So why frame it within that point of view?
I'm sure individual feminists can love just about any artistic impression, but that does not mean that piece of art then becomes feminist itself.

She doesn't frame it in that point of view. She comes from the other side of the argument. Her issue is that people consider it odd that a woman and even more an academic feminist can like Bond at all. ("You know that's just misogynic crap? And it's not meant for women for starters? Shouldn't you of all people know any better? Can't you just burn a bra or so, something we can understand?") Do you really, really, really think women are not criticised for Bond? That womanhood magically protects you?
She has never said that Bond becomes feminist material throughout the process.
This was written for female Bond researchers.

I've always been a Bond fan and never faced any criticism for it. Frankly, I would try to avoid the kind of people who would criticize me for my choice of movies/music/TV shows/whatever.

But she has to defend her academic position. She has to carve out her profile as an academic.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Well, last time it was your opinion, too. Namely that if only a majority is bothered by heteronormativity we can safely ignore it. I say, as do many, even if only a majority is harassed, it still has to be stopped.

You have misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

No, that's how I have understood it. I'm sorry.

Kath wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Kath wrote:

Salomé wrote:

But in that case, there is nothing feminist about their love of Bond. So why frame it within that point of view?
I'm sure individual feminists can love just about any artistic impression, but that does not mean that piece of art then becomes feminist itself.

She doesn't frame it in that point of view. She comes from the other side of the argument. Her issue is that people consider it odd that a woman and even more an academic feminist can like Bond at all. ("You know that's just misogynic crap? And it's not meant for women for starters? Shouldn't you of all people know any better? Can't you just burn a bra or so, something we can understand?") Do you really, really, really think women are not criticised for Bond? That womanhood magically protects you?
She has never said that Bond becomes feminist material throughout the process.
This was written for female Bond researchers.

I've always been a Bond fan and never faced any criticism for it. Frankly, I would try to avoid the kind of people who would criticize me for my choice of movies/music/TV shows/whatever.

But she has to defend her academic position. She has to carve out her profile as an academic.

So her position is that liking Bond harms her career?
That isn't made clear in the paper you linked to. She merely mentions that she personally experienced issues getting her research funded, due to it not being deemed high culture, but that would apply to a lot of studies that are devoted to instances of popular culture.

Salomé wrote:

Kath wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Kath wrote:

Salomé wrote:

But in that case, there is nothing feminist about their love of Bond. So why frame it within that point of view?
I'm sure individual feminists can love just about any artistic impression, but that does not mean that piece of art then becomes feminist itself.

She doesn't frame it in that point of view. She comes from the other side of the argument. Her issue is that people consider it odd that a woman and even more an academic feminist can like Bond at all. ("You know that's just misogynic crap? And it's not meant for women for starters? Shouldn't you of all people know any better? Can't you just burn a bra or so, something we can understand?") Do you really, really, really think women are not criticised for Bond? That womanhood magically protects you?
She has never said that Bond becomes feminist material throughout the process.
This was written for female Bond researchers.

I've always been a Bond fan and never faced any criticism for it. Frankly, I would try to avoid the kind of people who would criticize me for my choice of movies/music/TV shows/whatever.

But she has to defend her academic position. She has to carve out her profile as an academic.

So her position is that liking Bond harms her career?
That isn't made clear in the paper you linked to. She merely mentions that she personally experienced issues getting her research funded, due to it not being deemed high culture, but that would apply to a lot of studies that are devoted to instances of popular culture.

No, I don't think that it actually harmed her career (I mean ten years of Bond research are something, and, she's a peer-reviewer for JBS and so deemed an expert of the field).
I meant the beginning when she says that she was asked this question by counsellors. You have to defend your subject of study and she also said that she had planned a seminar on Bond but needed a new university, faculty, and programme until she was able to teach it. But I am not sure now if it was deemed low culture, as you said, or if she faced resistance because Bond is not exactly part of the classical canon for feminism.
Wasn't it also the students who asked? I mean, if you TEACH something, you better have some good answers ready.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Well, last time it was your opinion, too. Namely that if only a majority is bothered by heteronormativity we can safely ignore it. I say, as do many, even if only a majority is harassed, it still has to be stopped.

You have misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

So, what was your position?

Quote :

In the opening scene of Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964), for instance, Bond dismisses his companion, Dink, in order to talk business with Felix Leiter. He does this by slapping her butt and saying ‘man talk’.

This is the stuff I should've been writing about at uni.

x

CJB wrote:

Quote :

In the opening scene of Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964), for instance, Bond dismisses his companion, Dink, in order to talk business with Felix Leiter. He does this by slapping her butt and saying ‘man talk’.

This is the stuff I should've been writing about at uni.

She's writing about it at uni.

EricaAmbler wrote:

Yes, a First in Mansplaining would have made a very valuable contribution to society. Those damn engineers, scientists and mathematicians clouding things with numbers get on my non-binary tits.

You're preferring STEM?

I'm a guy, but I consider myself to be a feminist I think and all about equality and all.

But I don't consider Bond to be offensive to women really. I mean if it were the other way around, and the movie series was about a female spy, who jumped into bed with a lot of goodlooking male supporting characters, I wouldn't be offended, and neither would a lot of feminists I don't think.

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

I think the problem is that Bond girls are highly objectified - many posed in the Playboy magazine when their film hit the cinemas. I think it is the concept of a  "Bond girl" in itself which is problematic. A "Bond girl" has to meet certain criteria to be a "Bond girl" in the first place...you know what I mean? This is closely linked to beauty ideals, which is problematic. It is also linked to expectations towards gendered behaviour. A "Bond girl" might be seen as a prescription what a woman has to be like.
I do not think that the issue is that Bond has many partners. The problem is that a "Bond girl" is a fixed entity in its own.
Do you see my point?
You have no beef with me here; I just say how it is. And that's why she says that "female" narratives are prescriptive as well; they tell you that your goal is marriage. So, a Bond film tells a woman what she has to look like and a romance what she has to wish for...

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.

Salomé wrote:

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.

How dare women be feminine and attractive. Our Progressive betters will one day re-edit the old Bond filmd and use CGI to replace Honey Ryder & co. with purple-haired boars.