Reviewing rant
9 March 2007 @ 9:48
|
Lets us briefly, and in a A Level Sociology sort of way, give this article a quick feminist examination: 1. Journalists (and so forth) still refer to feminists as ‘bra-burners’, a deeply derogatory term if ever I heard one (and, of course, intended as such). 2. The main star takes off her shirt and looked ‘jolly pretty’. Is she a child? A painting? Of is he trying to be clever and turn the Daniel Radcliffe “phorrrr!” hysteria on its head? Probably… 3. Another reference to the female stars private life and whats more it is related to ‘puddles of tears’ - another rather derogatory term, intended as one… 4. The reviewer suggest that removing the play from its 1970s “feminist struggle” era is wrong and takes away its power, thereby suggesting the struggle is over and we’re alright now. After all, we can all take our shirts off and look jolly pretty without being pieces of meat now, can’t we? 5. Yet another reference to Ms. Piper’s fame, suggesting in one fell swoop that she can’t act (with which I will not argue) and that she is terrible working class. I will not even get in to the Marxist-feminist perspective on that. 6. “Poor Ann” and “poor Billie”. Little girls, struggling with the question dangerous man or boring one? Does it need to be either? Is it an either or, Quentin? If so, she is not that free, is she? All of which leaves you thinking that Mr. Letts feels that feminism, rather like Daniel Randcliffe’s chest (had to get my kitsch, objectification in their, too, didn’t I?) was a lot of fuss over nothing… Anyhoo, rant over, it just really annoyed me! |


http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/comment/story/0,,2034283,00.html gives a further slant on the subject…