the good, the bad, and the ugly
Aug. 22nd, 2003 07:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mountain_laurelone million points to the Target stores in Colma, CA, which have taken to stocking women's underwear with the bigger sizes on top. most stores stock in the opposite direction, with the biggest sizes right next to the floor, which makes no logistical sense whatsoever unless you're a sadist. i actually wrote to Target about this a while ago. i wonder how many other women did? either way, i'm definitely pleased about it.
no points at all to Inside Edition, for trumpeting the "progress" exhibited by the many "girl power" shows coming up in the fall TV season. i suppose it's better than Donna Reed, but i'm still not convinced it's a positive step that female characters can be strong only in the sense of having a black belt and being violent (while looking insanely hot, and much too thin to actually be that physically strong). (hell, is it a good message for anyone that the only way to be strong is to beat people up?) (and don't get me started on the notion that martial arts are all about the ass-kicking.) you'll notice that women who are portrayed as being aggressive in a business or sexual sense (both much more likely in the real world than a legion of female Bruce Lees) are still usually the bad guys.
and yes, i still enjoy watching ass-kicking hotties of both sexes. i'm not enough of an asshole to boycott most of the entertainment industry just because i'm disappointed by portrayals of women. (although i still don't get why people actually liked Charlie's Angels.)
that doesn't mean i don't notice.
(please, note the use of the word "usually" and do me the favor of not enumerating every exception you can think of. of course there are exceptions. the exceptions aren't what i'm talking about. what i'm talking about is why those are the exceptions rather than the rule.)
the ugly: i had a sudden wild craving for hot dogs, so that's what i'm having for dinner. mmmmmm, life-giving fat. my favorite.
no points at all to Inside Edition, for trumpeting the "progress" exhibited by the many "girl power" shows coming up in the fall TV season. i suppose it's better than Donna Reed, but i'm still not convinced it's a positive step that female characters can be strong only in the sense of having a black belt and being violent (while looking insanely hot, and much too thin to actually be that physically strong). (hell, is it a good message for anyone that the only way to be strong is to beat people up?) (and don't get me started on the notion that martial arts are all about the ass-kicking.) you'll notice that women who are portrayed as being aggressive in a business or sexual sense (both much more likely in the real world than a legion of female Bruce Lees) are still usually the bad guys.
and yes, i still enjoy watching ass-kicking hotties of both sexes. i'm not enough of an asshole to boycott most of the entertainment industry just because i'm disappointed by portrayals of women. (although i still don't get why people actually liked Charlie's Angels.)
that doesn't mean i don't notice.
(please, note the use of the word "usually" and do me the favor of not enumerating every exception you can think of. of course there are exceptions. the exceptions aren't what i'm talking about. what i'm talking about is why those are the exceptions rather than the rule.)
the ugly: i had a sudden wild craving for hot dogs, so that's what i'm having for dinner. mmmmmm, life-giving fat. my favorite.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-24 08:49 am (UTC)On the other hand, there's the Ginger Rogers factor.