This post makes me think of "Ten Seconds to Love," Chuck Klosterman's comparison of Marilyn Monroe and Pamela Anderson (from Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs).
I don't get the big deal either. She is attractive, but she seems super needy and unhappy. I don't think it would be a joy to be married to her.
I get it. She's very attractive, for one. Her beauty is of a softer, more "womanly" kind than what's presently fashionable, two (when I was heavier, I had a MM-esque figure, and I got plenty of attention). Third, she's extremely funny. Fourth, her persona was actually quite sweet: gullible, yes, but not really ditzy--she's never vapid or two-dimensional, just naive and earnest. Fifth, her unhappiness conveys a certain kind of vulnerability that a lot of men find attractive, and sixth, it also hints that there's more there than is on the surface.
What I don't get is why people don't get her.
On second thought, I also don't get why O. thinks she's hot in that picture. She's wearing makeup! And heels! And a dressy dress!
And everyone knows that's not her real hair color.
I can't remember who it was, some pissed-off feminist writer (funny. whoever it was was funny) described Marilyn Monroe's appeal as that "You could trick her into fucking you."
That doesn't seem too far off -- she doesn't want sex in the actually having sexual desires of her own sense, because that would be threatening. She's prey, in the predator-prey model of sexual relations in which men chase women, but she's slow, defenseless prey.
My sister had a MM type figure and coloration, but she lived during the Twiggy era. Guys loved her, but she couldn't be fashionable.
I read an interview with an acquaintance of MM's who said she could turn it on and off. When she had it turned on, though, she could stop traffic. She just had all these ways of seeming sexy and available and making the random guy feel special. But when she turned it off, nobody noticed her. She was just like anyone else.
They that when she finally got an actual contract she said something like, "Well, that's the last cock I'm going to have to suck."
Now, Debbie Reynolds *I* don't get. Zero sex appeal.
You and LB read the same interview.
What I don't get is why people don't get her.
For my part, I've never seen any more of her than pictures, and know probably as little about her as it is possible to know. Not on purpose; I've just never made any effort to find out more.
Don't you like Weiner senses, Ogged? C'mon, doesn't "chivalrous" sound better than "horndog"?
What I don't get is why people don't get her.
Because, as discussed in a prior thread, it's no longer socially acceptable to want to fuck a fifteen year-old.
An observation you were somewhat pwned on, by the way.
No, I read LB's comment. I confess. I think of LB as a valid source.
The story about her stopping traffic came from somewhere else, though. Before she was famous men used to organize their days around watching her walk past.
16 to 14, not to 15, which is madness. What 15-year-old looks like that?
Weiner:
As per usual, LB said it better and first. It's not that she looks fifteen, it's that she appears to have the emotional resources of a fifteen year-old. To the extent that people do want to sleep with fifteen year-olds, I assume they want to sleep with the mature-looking ones, not the the pimply, etc. ones (as covered before by, again, LB). So, then, the value of sleeping with a fifteen year-old has less to do with what she looks like and more to do with her emotional resources.
HELLO!!
HELLO!! ... I AM GOING TO SPEAK NOW!!!!! ... HELLO!!!!!!
HELLO!!!!!!!!!
I'VE HIT MY HEAD ON THE TABLE!!
HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!
...MY BRAIN... MY BRAIN HURTS !!!
Does everyone else mentally pronounce "pwned" as "p-owned"?
I don't think your last sentence follows, but the rest seems absolutely right. I find a certain kind of vulnerability attractive, but I also think that this may reflect something bad about me.
#15, MM looks like an adult woman, whereas a lot of today's fashionably attractive women look 15.
#19, I disagree about the emotional resources of a 15yo, although I see the point. Really, I think that MM was quite clever. Now, the character/persona she played, not so much, but still, if you watch, there are flashes of rather pointed wit. And *no* 15yo in the world knows how to play guys the way she does.
Where's the thread where we first discussed the peculiar Weiner sense of "pwned"? I know it's in here somewhere.
Everything okay, w-lfs-n? (And I think the 'trick her into fucking you' line is Cynthia Heimel. Either that, or someone who reminds me of Cynthia Heimel, but I can't think of anyone who fits into that category.)
Y'all realize blogger is down, right? Let's spice things up around here, there's nothing else to do.
Now, the character/persona she played, not so much, but still, if you watch, there are flashes of rather pointed wit.
But isn't the attraction often to the character, and not to her herself? Isn't Joe O right that the actual person was depressed and unhappy?
Let's spice things up around here, there's nothing else to do.
Yeah, let's play Truth or Dare.
The actual person was depressed and unhappy. Also, extremely bright.
She would have had to have been bright -- she's a wonderful actress.
Re ##23, 25:
This might be another Say Anything thing for me, so I may be well out of step. But listen to her voice and tell me that it doesn't sound like an adult talking baby-talk constantly. Also, I don't know about all her lovers, but Miller died recently, as did Joe D (who, I believe, beat her). She, of course, suicided. I don't know that she worked those guys all that well.
Well, again, we're conflating the person with the persona. Yes, the persona used a babyish kind of voice. I don't mind that per se: Jennifer Tilly is also sexy, imho. The persona also played men like violins (I'm thinking of the stairwell scene in "All About Eve," an early Monroe appearance).
The person was indeed very unhappy and surely more used than using.
Please don't use "suicide" as a verb. It sounds childish.
I think that part of her power was making mediocre, timid guys feel like they had a chance. She wasn't the aristocrat or the ice princess.
So what about Elizabeth Taylor?
See, this again goes back to the purple flute thread, but incredible skill at attracting men has very little to do with relating to them happily. (Isn't necessarily a drawback, but it's not the same skill.) So saying that she could play men like no one else isn't necessarily going to have made her happy.
I don't get the appeal. By that I mean, her face did nothing for me. As opposed to Bettie Page.
ash
['Ja.']
I didn't say it made her happy, I said it made her not dumb.
She wasn't the aristocrat, but she was something of an ice princess--over and over again, we find out that she isn't actually *fucking* the guys who are fascinated by her, just leading them on, and getting paid handsomely for it.
Well, again, we're conflating the person with the persona.
If I had a daughter, and I had to choose a persona for her from the three main female characters in How to Marry a Millionaire, I'd want her to be Bacall, Grable, Monroe, in that order. Off the top of my head, I can't think of single MM character that I'd want her to emulate. But, again, I may be way out of step on this.
w-lfs-n - yeah, nothing. You're right; it was, if nothing else, lazy.
Sheila (who is an actress and often writes about craft) did a bunch of interesting posts on MM recently. You can start here and work backwards.
#42: Of course her persona isn't one I'd encourage any woman to *emulate*. But in the context of her time, she (the persona) is using the rules of sexism to advance her own cause, much like Pamela Anderson is doing today. I have no problem with that, although I do find it terribly sad that in real life, she was so shat upon.
Purple flute. Scroll down that thread for purple-rhyming.
So what about Elizabeth Taylor?
Pass. Catherine Deneuve.
And while you're at it, Myrna Loy and Lana Turner.
ash
['And Raquel Welch now, not before.']
I know I have next to no credibility on this, but let's not make this a "who's hot?" thread. The Monroe issue is pretty interesting, by itself.
If it's a "who's hot" thread, it'll be more interesting and faster-paced, though. And blogger's down.
Myrna Loy, for sure.
I know I have next to no credibility on this, but let's not make this a "who's hot?" thread.
Ok, except that, without a comparison, it's kinda hard to get at things and,
The Monroe issue is pretty interesting, by itself.
That's the point. Most of the complaints I hear about 'not getting Monroe' involve her weight, which is not an issue for me. (See Page reference.) I really really don't get it. She's not particularly cute, her speaking face is obviously contrived, she's always 'posing', and as far as I can tell she never actually had a personality. Mainly, as far as I can tell, she had big tits. I'd like Jayne Mansfield better if it came down to tits.
Page is from the same period and is obviously working the seedier end of the same side of the street, but at least she's fun. Also, attractive.
I guess I do NOT get the sense Monroe would do anything. Quite the opposite. Produce diamonds and maybe she will, maybe she won't. I always thought that WAS her public personality. If so, ick.
ash
['That's all.']
Speaking voice. Sheesh. Tiny box typing.
ash
['Gah.']
Oh sorry -- never mind those last 2 posts -- looking back I see that Ogged was requesting that this not become a "who's hot" thread, where I took him to mean the opposite.
An easy mistake to make, Jeremy. Thanks.
she (the persona) is using the rules of sexism to advance her own cause, much like Pamela Anderson is doing today.
pls to xpound.
"Hedy Lamarr married Fritz Mandal, the first of six husbands, in 1933. During their marriage, which broke up in 1937, Madame Mandl was an institution in Viennese society, entertaining—and dazzling—foreign leaders, including Hitler and Mussolini. Her husband specialized in shells and grenades, but from the mid-thirties on he also manufactured military aircraft. He was interested in control systems and conducted research in the field. His wife clearly learned things from him, because she and her co-inventor, George Antheil, later went on to invent the torpedo guidance system that was two decades before its time.
Hedy Lamarr's co-inventor, George Antheil, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, in 1900. His parents were from East Prussia. After studying music at what is now the Curtis Institute, in Philadelphia, he went to Europe to pursue a career as a concert pianist, heading first to Berlin and then settling in Paris in 1923.....
They began talking about radio control for torpedoes. The idea itself was not new, but her concept of "frequency hopping" was. Lamarr brought up the idea of radio control. Antheil's contribution was to suggest the device by which synchronization could be achieved. He proposed that rapid changes in radio frequencies could be coordinated the way he had coordinated the sixteen synchronized player pianos in his Ballet Méanique. The analogy was complete in his mind: By the time the two applied for a patent on a "Secret Communication System," on June 10, 1941, the invention used slotted paper rolls similar to player-piano rolls to synchronize the frequency changes in transmitter and receiver, and it even called for exactly eighty-eight frequencies, the number of keys on a piano.
Lamarr and Antheil worked on the idea for several months and then, in December 1940, sent a description of it to the National Inventors Council, which had been launched with much fanfare earlier in the year as a gatherer of novel ideas and inventions from the general public. Its chairman was Charles F. Kettering, the research director of General Motors. Over its lifetime, which lasted until 1974, the council collected more than 625,000 suggestions, few of which ever reached the patent stage. But according to Antheil, Kettering himself suggested that he and Lamarr develop their idea to the point of being patentable. With the help of an electrical engineering professor from the California Institute of Technology they ironed out its bugs, and the patent was granted on August 11, 1942. It specified that a high-altitude observiation plane could steer the torpedo from above."
So, if you were to fight Marilyn Monroe, and she was a ninja, but you had a 6-8 inch long knife, what do you reckon your chances?
"In the United States Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil, shunned by the Navy, no longer pursued their invention. But in 1957, the concept was taken up by engineers at the Sylvania Electronic Systems Division, in Buffalo, New York. Their arrangement, using, of course, electronics rather than piano rolls, ultimately became a basic tool for secure military communications. It was installed on ships sent to blockade Cuba in 1962, about three years after the Lamarr-Antheil patent had expired. Subsequent patents in frequency changing, which are generally unrelated to torpedo control, have referred to the Lamarr-Antheil patent as the basis of the field, and the concept lies behind the principal anti-jamming device used today, for example, in the U.S. government's Milstar defense communication satellite system."
Hey, does anyone remember when Matt McIrvin was talking about how he remembered the day when he read something about someone reminiscing about Frank Zappa talking about when nostalgia was better than it had become? That was really cool, far better than this degenerate age.
So, if you were to fight Marilyn Monroe, and she was a ninja, but you had a 6-8 inch long knife, what do you reckon your chances?
That's a rather odd metaphor for sex.
Emereson, are you saying Hedy Lamarr radio-controls your torpedo?
#59: Well, this isn't terribly original--it's arguably the one moment when I'm ever going to say something that agrees, even slightly, with anything Camille Paglia's said. Basically, Monroe and Anderson, like Madonna and Cindy Crawford, are ambitious women who took stock of the world they lived in, decided (not incorrectly) that one route to success was to play up their looks and sex appeal, and went whole hog. It's not something I'd recommend to a daughter or friend or whatever, but I can't blame (and somewhat admire) women who decide, basically, that if you can't beat 'em you might as well take 'em for a ride and get rich off it.
The difference between Monroe and the others is that she wasn't in charge of the situation in quite the same way--Anderson, Crawford, and Madonna all pretty much own their own "brand" and profit from it accordingly. Monroe didn't.
I think I remember someone alluding to something about how Matt McIrvin had talked about how he had remembered a day when he read something about someone reminiscing about Frank Zappa talking about when nostalgia was better than it had become, but I'm not sure.
But isn't it a pretty selfish way to make it, insofar as it reinforces the stereotypes?
Hey, everyone! Prohibition was repealed 72 years ago today!
Essentially, Hedy Lamarr guides
all
of our torpedos. Not just mine, or yours, but everyone's.
And screw HTML here.
69: Let's party like it was 2005 - 72!
As a little girl, Audrey Hepburn carried messages for the Dutch Resistance -- how could a Nazi mistrust that wide-eyed look?
Little did those suckers know.
It was traumatic for her and she never spoke of it, they say.
But isn't it a pretty selfish way to make it, insofar as it reinforces the stereotypes?
In her case she just had this sexed up/vulnerable quality, couldn't escape it, because of her background. So better by far to try to exert some control over it--and others--rather than just be completely led around by it, no? Ultimately she couldn't control it, but I can see why she made the attempt.
#68, yeah, god forbid women should be selfish.
god forbid women should be selfish.
I don't think it's so much that women are being selfish. It's that some people are benefitting by reinforcing the same stereotypes that are oppressive to most other people. That it's women who are doing it is really incidental.
Based on the times and the lack of family support, MM didn't have a lot of options. The one she chose might have been the best actual one. Housewife and girlfriend were the other two, probably. Career women were rare then, but mainly, she had no family support ($$).
Come on, I think you know what I mean: black actors are often reluctant or refuse to play roles where they're cast as gangbangers or drug dealers, and we understand their reasons--it seems quite similar with women playing a certain kind of sexpot.
74: ogged had a post during—lets call it the interregnum—about his issues with people living up to stereotypes (not that there is a stereotype of women being selfish, it goes towards why he's drawing the negative value judgment that they are selfish).
Hedy Lamarr
Hedley.
ash
['Count De Monet.']
#75, 77, and 78: No, I wasn't being snarky, and I do understand why some actors won't play X stereotypical role. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna object to people who say, "hey, these are the available roles, and I want to work, so I'm gonna get paid." Getting paid is also a progressive act, in some situations.
I do, actually, think it's relevant that in this case it's women: the stereotype, of course, is that women *aren't supposed* to be selfish, and part of that stereotype is that they're not supposed to be as hard-headed about business as men are. One effect of that stereotype is that, generally speaking, women *do* negotiate salaries less effectively than men, which kind of perpetuates the whole second-class earner problem. So again, I have a paradoxical admiration for women who are straight up about wanting to get paid, and well: it's something so few women will admit to.
And anyway, although I do admire the principled stand of people who refuse to play into stereotypes, I'm not into holding those who are stereotyped responsible for the stereotype that they themselves didn't create. Even if playing along with it perpetuates a problem, hey: we all play along with bullshit from time to time, don't we? I'm not gonna throw stones.
I don't even think it's selfishness, per se. It's that there were other models out there (at least in film land) that she didn't fit. It's not that (in the movies) you couldn't find a tough-talking woman in a man's world (Rosalind Russell) or a wife who matched her husband drink for drink (Myrna Loy), or been the smart woman who marries a decent guy (Grable, IIRC), etc. It's that Marylin couldn't credibly be those people on film. Given what she had, she used it. But she didn't have to use it because she was a woman (or not to such caricature); she had to use it because that's what she had that was most valuable. And I think that's the dangerous aspect of iconizing Monroe. Even if it's the most valuable thing she has, I don't want my future daughter learning to trade on her sexuality.
It's entirely possible that, for an attractive but poor young woman, a $10K loan would be better spent on breast implants than on college. But that doesn't mean I want that as a social policy.
Shorter #80: It's admirable to take a principled stand, but it isn't therefore selfish not to.
So again, I have a paradoxical admiration for women who are straight up about wanting to get paid, and well: it's something so few women will admit to.
Fair enough. I simply don't see any reason why anyone would want to enter into the bidness transaction MM was after.
ash
['Same with PA, actually.']
Yeah, but it isn't fair to demand that the actions of every individual live up to the goal of "I want it to be social policy"--especially when said individual is in a disadvantaged position to begin with.
I'm not sure I can agree with 85. I think of Iran, and the basij, the regime's thug force. They're almost entirely drawn from the ranks of the poor, but it seems like we still need a category of condemnation for people who do bad things, even out of legitimate need.
Marilyn Monroe's success as an actress is on a par with killing people?
But isn't it a pretty selfish way to make it, insofar as it reinforces the stereotypes
This might be a valid criticism of madonna or pam anderson, I guess, but I hardly think that in choosing to be MM, MM was rejecting any feminist alternatives. The choices the culture offered at the time were more like Nice Girl, Bad Girl(Dumb) and Bad Girl(Smart). And the Nice Girl needed family support to keep on being nice, or faced a life of poverty. MM didn't have that. So it looks like she tried to be Bad Girl(Smart) pretending to be Bad Girl(Dumb). The thing about those choices is you can't win.
it seems like we still need a category of condemnation for people who do bad things, even out of legitimate need.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing, though, so much as a not good thing. I think there's a meaningful distinction there.
Marilyn Monroe's success as an actress is on a par with killing people?
They're not strictly analogous, obviously (though they are both keeping women down). Just establishing the "bad things done for understandable reasons are still bad" principle.
I also don't think it's as simple as saying that the example MM (or PA or anyone else) sets to young women is "trade on sex appeal." On a simple level that can be said to be the example; but I would say that the example is, "be in charge of your own image, know what you're doing, if you're going to make compromises know why, and keep your eye on whatever ball you've decided is important."
I also don't think it's true that we don't want our daughters to learn how to trade on their sex appeal. Let's be realistic: women are judged on their looks--not entirely, but it counts. And certain kinds of feminized "styles" just translate as effective / powerful / successful more than others do. I think it would be unconscionable not to at least teach girls that, even if at the same time it would be equally unconscionable not to teach them that they shouldn't have to play along with it, if they don't want to.
Some bad things are bad no matter what the rationale; and some bad things are less bad than their causes. And in context, some things that would be "bad" in a perfect world can actually be admirable in certain circumstances.
Speaking as an old guy, the idea that there was a feminist option for MM in 1950 or 1955 is more or less ridiculous. Hollywood was terribly corrupt , monopolistic, and mobbed-up, and treated everyone badly, and few actors or actresses had much choice over their scripts (even scriptwriters didn't have control over scripts.)
Beyond that, there was no feminist awareness in the general culture. When feminism showed up in a big way in left circles around 1970, even there there was a lot of resistance. Politicos just didn't think that women's issues were important.
B:
it isn't fair to demand that the actions of every individual live up to the goal of "I want it to be social policy"
I'm not saying that she had to do anything. Even today, I'd find it hard to begrudge said poor young woman. But I don't see anything particularly admirable about it. She looked at her assets and used what she had; we all do that.
It's just that, often enough, when we admire people, we're admiring particular characteristics or assets more than something willed about them. My admiration for Jordan, for example, is really a stand-in for my admiration for his athleticism and the world he has open to him because of his athleticism. Monroe as object of admiration is sex appeal as object of admiration. If you are, for some reason, a woman who's only value is ever going to be as someone's sex doll, she might be totally admirable. But otherwise there are better models, and better characteristics to admire.
Well, no, we *don't* all look at our assets and use what we have; a lot of us fail to use our assets because doing so is somehow "indecent" or "not respectable" or will make people "not like us." That's the context in which I have to give props to MM.
I know.
Let's change the subject.
Whatever condemnation is going on isn't because people are seeing her actions as "indecent". It's because they were less than what would be most admirable (and yes, self-sacrificing to a certain extent), avoiding playing into damaging stereotypes.
But isn't that a double standard? Do we judge *everyone* for being less than "what would be most admirable"? Is that a standard that men are held to? Or is it one that only those who are subject to stereotypes have to live up to? And if so, isn't that really rather unfair and, dare I say, oppressive?
It's because they were less than what would be most admirable (and yes, self-sacrificing to a certain extent), avoiding playing into damaging stereotypes.
OK, I disagree with this. There's a difference between not admiring and condemning. Part of the problem is that we (certainly I) are conflating the person with the persona. I don't find much admirable about the persona. I feel sorry for the person, but I don't think she's bad or evil. She made a series of choices that had certain payoffs. So be it. Who are we to judge?
It's a standard that everyone is held to in the sense that we don't actively encourage less than admirable behaviour (obviously there are exceptions, but for the sake of argument let's say that well meaning people don't). The point isn't that we're singling out MM and saying "You--how dare you not contradict the stereotype", it's that she shouldn't be singled out for praise for being successful by playing into a stereotype.
OK, I disagree with this. There's a difference between not admiring and condemning.
I'm actually trying to (awkwardly) say that. I'm not making a moral judgment here, just saying that her actions weren't an example of an ideal mode of behaviour, and thus aren't particularly praise-worthy. No condemning on my part though.
See, I think that that (102) is an oversimplified understanding of what it is that she did. She played to stereotype, sure, but lots of other people have done so as well. Her skill is a testament to, well, skill (as an actor); her decision to play the role in many guises and to perpetuate it in real life as well was a canny business move; and her beauty--as beauty--is, imho, admirable.
Practically speaking, the decisions she made in her professional life seem to have made her unhappy in her personal life--and professionally as well, in that many of her talents were under or mis-used (she seldom got credit for being a good comic actor, and her skill in perpetuating the role off-screen led and lead a lot of people to confusing the persona with the person, which ironically underestimates her acting ability). I'm sure that the fact that she had the skill and control only up to a point--but not, in the end, to the same degree that, say, Pamela Anderson has--were part of her depression, inasmuch as a lot of depression is about powerlessness. And in that sense, her life demonstrates that those choices, in isolation, weren't great, or at least weren't enough. But I honestly think that, whatever one thinks of the role she played, taking the role out of the context in which she lived and not recognizing the real skill and pragmatism with which she made her decisions, is unfair.
I concede that she was a talented person, but I don't think anyone is really disputing that. I didn't mean to say that playing into stereotype successfully as she did isn't difficult. She should be praised for her talent and ability, but not for playing into stereotype in and of itself. That she was able to make the most of a sexist situation is impressive, but this shouldn't stop us from recognizing that she was, to a certain extent, strengthening those stereotypes (though I could be completely wrong about this).
So, summing up: praise the talent, not the roles she took.
I don't want my future daughter learning to trade on her sexuality.
Look, my ass gets me places, and I refuse to feel sorry about that.
My admiration for Jordan, for example, is really a stand-in for my admiration for his athleticism and the world he has open to him because of his athleticism.
I just happened to have been flipping through a book on Jordan; I think I've given up on ever possessing that kind of drive. Athleticism is one thing, that kind of single-minded commitment is another. And that's probably also something to be admire about MM. She did make it, however she did it. That's not easy to do, to put everything aside and lay all your bets on one goal. It may not even be a particularly wise thing to do. But she did it and made it work.
I'm coming in very late on this, but I won't let that stop me.
Some affectations annoy me in the MM persona: the fluty, whispery voice, some poorly managed moments of feigned innocence, some predatory elements in the narratives she got cast into. But there are magnificent moments captured in some of these narratives that just kill me, and I don't entirely know what to make of that.
For example, there's a shot in Some Like It Hot where MM is walking along a train platform. She's got an amazing, satin-clad ass, switching back and forth on ridiculous heels, and she's trundling--but with easy panache--multiple little cases. As I recall it, the male duo is behind her (so the ass-watching would be from their POV), the train starts going, and she turns her head over her shoulder to say something, laughing, seemingly unaffected.
It's always seemed like an extraordinary moment to me--as though the viewer's desiring her wasn't her fault, that she and her attempts to take control of her life (yes, often via sex) could somehow remain innocent.
Now that we are clearly not in MM's world, her delicate (and perhaps intrinsicly problematic) balancing-act seems much more like the perfection of an asymmetric tactic. The dangers on both sides are more clearly visible to young women, I would argue.
Blaming her for reinforcing the stereotype seems out of place to me. Movies with dumb blonde sexpot heroines would have been made with or without her: her participation probably made them better movies, but not more harmful for that reason.
I can find the persona distasteful, and perhaps disapprove of someone who finds it too appealing, but that doesn't mean that MM was doing anything all that wrong by playing to it. As Hattie McDaniels, said, "I'd rather play a maid than be one."
Hattie McDaniels is an example of another actor who managed to add *some* dimension to stereotypes. I think the movie version of GWTW sometimes gets unfairly tagged for exceptional racism (the book, on the other hand, is exceptionally racist) when in fact, its portrayals of its black characters were actually a very small step above some other stuff from that period I've seen, which doesn't get complained about as much because it's not in the middle of an apologia for the Confederacy. I think it was Sullivan's Travels, maybe, in which there's this scene with a train porter (I'm blanking on the specific word for bellhops on trains) that's supposed to be funny but is just horrifying, because the character doesn't even really seem human. Bringing some humanity and interest to otherwise demeaning roles ihas a degree of progressivity to it.
(I'm blanking on the specific word for bellhops on trains)
I think "porter" is it. Or maybe you're thinking about "Pullman porter"?
(What I mean to say is, "porter" is the name of the job. "Pullman" is a company that hired porters to work on trains.)
Here is a story about the unionization of Pullman porters.
I reckon this link will serve you better than that poorly formatted one in the above comment.
It is amazing to me how consistently Bphd presents my point of view. I'll be reading along formulating a response and then viola, Bphd has already posted it.
But for good drama, Bphd, we need to find something to disagree on.
I like circus peanuts, how about you?
The Monroe issue is pretty interesting, by itself.
And it goes beyond possible parallels with any other pneumatic hotties. See, e.g., this:
She was just like our whole country, not young anymore, but not old either; a little breathless, very beautiful, maybe a little stupid, maybe a lot smarter than she seemed. And she was looking for something -- I think she wanted to be good. Look at the men in her life -- Joe DiMaggio, Arthur Miller, maybe the Kennedys. Look at how good they seem!... And she was vulnerable, too. She was never quite happy, she was always a little overweight. She was just like our whole country.... And those men.... Those famous, powerful men -- did they really love her? Did they take care of her? If she was ever with the Kennedys, they couldn't have loved her -- they were just using her, they were just being careless and treating themselves to a thrill. That's what powerful men do to this country -- It's a beautiful, sexy, breathless country, and powerful men use it to treat themselves to a thrill! They say they love it, but they don't mean it....
I can find the persona distasteful,
I looked back at this, and it's more than I mean. There are MM movies I find entertaining, she's lovely to look at, a very good actress, and very funny. All I meant by 'finding the persona distasteful' is the obvious: that I'm not happy with the society that makes her (the persona's) route to success a practical or attractive one, and that even in such a society I'd say that such a route to success is probably ill-advised and unworthy of emulation. As an entertainer, though, MM (the actress) did a spectacular job.
"Do we judge *everyone* for being less than "what would be most admirable"? Is that a standard that men are held to?"
Yes. When the question is, "do we admire this person?" or "Is this person admirable?" the issue is: "does this person meet our standards for what would be admirable."
This is true for men and women. If I have stated a tautology, sorry, but apparently it needed to be said.
But that's not entirely true -- we admire people for excellence or for being admirable in some dimension, but we don't generally require them to be unexceptionable. Michael Jordan is an admirable ball player: the fact that he appears pretty light on the social concern, worrying about Nike workers worldwide, front doesn't make him not an admirable ball player.
MM was an admirably skilled, funny and beautiful actress. The genre in which she worked could be described as socially pernicious on some level, but doesn't make her not admirable in the areas in which she excelled.
I don't want my future daughter learning to trade on her sexuality.
I dunno. If it is a strength, and one aspect of a balanced person, I see no problem with men or women using their sexuality to their advantage.
The problem comes in if sexuality is the only thing one can trade on, or the only thing one is allowed to trade on.
Marilyn Monroe didn't marry Henry Miller
Looks like you can get a little clip of it on Bern's webpage, but I couldn't link straight to the lyrics then. Just had to get that out of my head.
That Owen Meany passage reminded me of something else I wanted to say about Marilyn. Ogged's sentence of "she has no needs of her own" was entirely wrong. She has a passle of needs--she just makes you believe that you could be the one to fill them, that you will be kinder and better than all those other galoots, that you are the savior whose desire is purer than all the others, the one who won't hurt her. She creates a possibility that sexual desire and conquest, which is in its real world manifestation messy, and sometimes hostile, could be innocent, even righteous. That's a powerful fantasy--to be sexual and to be good.
we admire people with faults, yes. But we have to find something admirable about them. We don't find men admirable without some reason for it. Same with women.
Many people here don't find Marilyn Monroe admirable. This does not mean that they are executing some sort of double standard. The fact of public renown doesn't have make you admire a person. It's an absurd suggestion that because Marilyn Monroe was famous -- her success as an actress is actually pretty dubious -- that we must find her admirable.
Having a submissive girlfriend or wife is a sign of moral if not mental illness.
This statement pisses me off. Submissive people need love too.
One of my best friends in grad school hooked up with a submissive woman for a few months, and it completely screwed up the friendship. I didn't know how to act around such a creature, and I couldn't imagine how he would know.
Yes, such creatures should be locked away somewhere where they won't offend the delicate sensibilites of snobbish grad students.
It isn't just that the area in which MM worked was socially dubious, it is the fact that her career embodied that very social dubiousness. Maybe she was a clever opportunist; maybe she was a tool. Anyone who claims to know for sure one way or the other, I would question how certain you can be about that.
Even if she was a clever opportunist, that does not mean we have to find her admirable. I do not find Paris Hilton admirable, though she could probably claim the same.
Tripp, I hate circus peanuts. Ick.
Text, the original question wasn't "is this person admirable," it was "do we "get" the appeal?" They're different questions. One can "get" it without agreeing with it. And, as LB said, there's a difference between "admirable" (which can apply to some characteristics but not others--no one has just one set of characteristics, and even MLK was apparently an adulterer) and "unexceptionable."
One question that's occured to me, and I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, is that we all seem uncritical of admiring MJ's athleticism. So far, so good: watching him in action is glorious. But that, too, is a pervasive and damaging stereotype: black men are, above all, athletes and entertainers. Yet we're able to separate the admiration for the obvious skill from endorsing the stereotype.
I'd argue that the significant difference between MJ and MM in that regard is simply history: with a little historical distance, we're somewhat freer of the cultural frame that made admiring MM inevitable than we are of the frame that compels admiration for MJ.
Can we draw a distinction between 'submissive' which I understand as a sexual orientation/kink/whatever which doesn't necessarily inform non-sexual parts of one's life all that much, and 'submissive' as used in the quote, which means something more like compliant?
Because, you know, call me a bigot, but I do find relationships in which one person is unquestionably in charge and the other is obedient (outside of the whole sexual role-play thing, in which, hey, whatever floats your boat) freaky and disturbing.
Tia,
She has a passle of needs--she just makes you believe that you could be the one to fill them,
Exactly. She offers the "Hero and the wounded bird" relationship, and who doesn't want to be a hero?
The long term problem with such relationships is that in order for the man to remain the hero the bird must remain wounded, which is not a very nice place to be.
And it was not required that MM embody the sexual pathologies of her era to succeed as an actress. There were other -- and more -- successful actresses who did not make that choice.
There were many actresses in her era and in previous eras with strong, intelligent personas who we may choose to admire if we like. I will choose Katherine Hepburn.
Lizardbreath,
How did that "one person unquestionably in charge" get in there? I think you have a problem with that part, not the submissive part.
I don't think the two always go hand in hand.
If MJ performed minstrel shows after each game, I think we'd find him less admirable. He doesn't care about social issues, but he also seems ruthlessly intelligent. We admire his athleticism because he's an athlete.
On the whole, I "get" Monroe's attraction, but I think that makes me a worse, not better person.
I'd argue that the significant difference between MJ and MM in that regard is simply history: with a little historical distance, we're somewhat freer of the cultural frame that made admiring MM inevitable than we are of the frame that compels admiration for MJ.
Disagree entirely. When we worry about over-emphasizing MJ's characteristics, we worry about it because we know that the vast majority of people trying to emulate him will fail. And then they will be lost. When we worry about MM's characteristics, we worry that the people emulating her will succeed - that they will learn to successfully trade sex for status, cash, whatever.
Also, re: "black men are, above all, athletes and entertainers," strange as it may seem, no small part of Jordan's appeal is that he seems smart and not that committed to being an entertainer.
Miller died recently, as did Joe D (who, I believe, beat her).
!!!!
Incidentally, I, too, find myself in agreement with Dr. Bitch, and also with Tripp!
I do happen to think that if we cast ourselves as judges of whole lives that people have lived, we should at the very least give each person some slack from the get-go, cosidering that living a life is hard work, and mostly sucks.
It might just be because I'm hung over.
no small part of Jordan's appeal is that he seems smart and not that committed to being an entertainer
This doesn't seem right. Didn't be become famous as the man who popularized the showy dunk? And the tongue affectation?
"we should at the very least give each person some slack from the get-go, cosidering that living a life is hard work, and mostly sucks."
I can't really disagree with that, except for the policy of taut roping, forbidding slack, at the mineshaft.
#131: I don't know that I agree that we worry those who emulate the MM paradigm will succeed. I think we worry b/c we know that, as paradigm, it is only fantasy, unsustainable in the real world--and therefore doomed to failure.
How did that "one person unquestionably in charge" get in there? I think you have a problem with that part, not the submissive part.
Even if the relationship is totally freely agreed upon by both sides, that gets me to 'none of my business -- people should do what makes them happy' but I don't really like people who want to be in a relationship where they are either unquestionably in charge or unquestionably dominated.
Paris Hilton and MM are not in any way comparable.
That's a powerful fantasy--to be sexual and to be good.
That's what she offered straight men. But the appeal goes beyond that. See, e.g., Elton John. It's just being, as Tripp says, the hero. Sex doesn't necessarily enter into it at all.
they might run the forty yard dash in a similar amount of time. If Monroe wasn't dead.
I may have overstated my argument. It is a fact that MM was appealing to lots of men, and as for reasons why, there are interesting things to say.
But for those who do not find her appealing, I do not find that at all troubling or odd. It probably means that they lack certain American sexual pathologies. Let's not elevate MM to a level that she never attained or aspired to in order to turn the tables on men whose tastes indicate less, and not more, cockenvaginmindedness than the overall population.
Paris Hilton and MM are not in any way comparable.
Two blondes who used sex appeal and played dumb to get famous. Hilton may not compare well, but she can be compared. I can grasp why Marilyn Monroe maintains a grip on the American imagination. The one I can't for the life of me figure out is Princess Diana.
That's what she offered straight men. But the appeal goes beyond that. See, e.g., Elton John. It's just being, as Tripp says, the hero.
I puzzled over this for a long time, misreading slol's intent and thinking that Elton John was being compared to MM, and being called a hero.
Not really.
Talent / no talent. Self-made woman / billionaire. Many facial expressions / one facial expression. Natural / bionic. Vulnerable / brassy. Available / unattainable.
They're both blond and wear skimpy outfits, but Paris's game is fame and not sexiness. I suppose that a frat-house poll is required, but I doubt that she ranks high among the fantasy babes of our time.
It's funny that Paris liked her Greek boyfriend, also named Paris (Latsis), because he "knew how to spend money". This must be some atavistic female thing from the African veldt, because Paris H. didn't need anyone else to spend money on her.
Being famous is like a hobby to Paris.
Well sure, it isn't a flattering comparison.
#144: Princess Di is pretty unappealling, but obviously a lot of people like her because she was a pretty victim, and also perhaps because she tried, ineffectively, to be a populist royal.
And the 'literally a princess' thing is a big element. Royalty means fairy-tales and magic to Americans.
When we worry about over-emphasizing MJ's characteristics, we worry about it because we know that the vast majority of people trying to emulate him will fail. And then they will be lost.
This is at least overstated, since it suggests that if everyone could be a great athlete (and not particularly devoted to anything else at all), they should do that.
I don't think it would be a joy to be married to her.
Three marriages, all ending in divorce, with a mean duration of 3.1 years, seems to confirm your speculation.
Now with the Di bashing? Oy vey. She was pretty, and demure, and seemed to have a good heart. And she was popular before she became a victim, which I think made the sympathy her victimization provoked more heartfelt. She wasn't "my type," but I did have a soft spot for her.
Di's anti-land mines activities were several notches above most society charities.
She was pretty, and demure, and seemed to have a good heart.
BFD. I could stand on my desk with a Nerf ball right now and hit four different women that fit that description.
I'm not hating on Diana, I just couldn't grasp the histrionic outpouring of grief at her death from a bunch of people who had precisely zero connection with her beyond having watched her dysfunctional marriage in supermarket tabloids. It will ever be mysterious to me.
Yeah, yeah, she was a princess. That appeal eludes me as well, but then I'm not a thirteen-year-old girl.
Lady Di was the Paris Hilton of the 1980s, only more slutty.
only more slutty
Hilton has superior documentation, however.
Horrendous Princess Di joke:
Mother Teresa dies, and is welcomed joyously into heaven, and issued a small golden halo. As St. Peter is giving her an orientation tour, she notices Princess Di, who had died the week before. Slightly miffed, she asks Peter, "Wait a second, I was saintly, a holy woman all my life, and yet I have this small, simple golden halo. Princess Diana was a sinner, and while I know that our sins are forgiven and I'm glad to see her here in heaven, why is her halo so much larger and more complex than mine?"
"Terry, Terry, don't worry about it. That's not a halo -- it's the steering wheel."
with a Nerf ball right now and hit four different women
In one shot? We have got to play pool.
Pretty, demure, good heart, yeah, okay, maybe.
Also, incredibly vapid.
Di's anti-land mines activities were several notches above most society charities.
Yes, but I don't expect Elton John to pen tearful odes to Rigoberta Menchu or Aung San Suu Kyi when they die.
Ok, I'm getting the anti-royalist vibe, which I can respect, even if I like Di "personally."
What about the anti-airhead vibe?
(Feel free to point out that my dislike of Di is not free of the taint of internalized sexism.)
"Marilyn Monroe is a woman who desperately wants your cock, won't make fun of it no matter what, and has absolutely no needs of her own, other than more of your cock."
God bless her. And you, sir, are a poet.
Bad things come in threes, so when Mother T and Lady Di died ("Di dies": unused headline) , I was waiting for the third.
It ended up being President Mobutu of the Congo. A friend of mine was pulling for Soupy Sales, but no.
Thank you.
Not much to say that hasn't been said, but here are three things I like about Marilyn Monroe:
1) She's a normal weight. She's only fat by modern Hollywood standards (and even then, I think Monroe was roughly Kate Winslet-sized). She looks damn fine nonetheless.
2) Her persona seemed like a lot of fun; aside from the sex appeal, she seemed the sort of person who would be absolutely delighted with small pleasures of everyday life. Happy people are fun to be around and her smile is contagious.
3) I had heard that she invented the dumb blonde persona -- she didn't adapt to a stereotype as much as she invented/perfected it (and then, sadly, was identified with that persona.) And she's really funny.
And it was not required that MM embody the sexual pathologies of her era to succeed as an actress.
Not so much. Not with her looks. The other actresses around and before that time seem to embody the idea of the unattainable, distant yet alluring rich woman (40s wave, languid glance through dark lashes) or the sharp and spunky Woman Journalist. All those types seem to require, I dunno, angles somewhere on someone's face.
I doubt she would have been a believable Hildy in His Girl Friday, and I doubt she would have had a chance at being cast.
141: The lyrics to Candle in the Wind were written by a straight man. I think that the idea that Marilyn offers a non-sexual appeal to goodness may be part of the fantasy of transcending the rapacity of sexuality.
Not so much. Not with her looks.
It would have been interesting to see her doing broad comedy -- Lucille Ball stuff. Might have worked.
"The other actresses around and before that time seem to embody the idea of the unattainable, distant yet alluring rich woman (40s wave, languid glance through dark lashes) or the sharp and spunky Woman Journalist."
I don't know. I think there were probably more than three kinds of actresses in the 50s. You can group public figures into all sorts of different categories, but in the end, they each have their own particularities. I don't think Doris Day was the angular type, but neither did she play Marilyn's game.
I don't want to condemn MM for being a sex-pot, but don't pretend that she was more than that, or that she was a sex-pot out of duress.
Yes, but I don't expect Elton John to pen tearful odes to Rigoberta Menchu or Aung San Suu Kyi when they die.
Aung San Suu Kyi is unique among Nobel Prize winners in that every time I see her, I think to myself "She's kinda hott."
Did you know that Lucille Ball was a member of the Communist Party. Fact.
Hence the attraction to Desi Arnaz.
For playing a sexpot.
Anthony Hopkins doesn't really eat people, even with a nice chianti.
170: What about Henry Kissinger, the doctor of my dreams?
unique among Nobel Prize winners
C'mon now, Alva Myrdal was a total GrandMILF. Also, Mairead Corrigan was kinda fetching.
Re: 175
Nah, neither of them do it for me. If I were forced to choose a runner up, I'd pick Jody Williams, but only Aung San Suu Kyi genuinely qualifies as NLILF.
Eh, Jody Williams is the poor man's Kim Gordon.
Kim looks pretty surly in that picture.
I don't care how friendly Henry appears. He'll never be a NLILF for me. You can have him all to yourself, Jeremy.
Friendly Henry / Surly Henry / Picky Henry
Apo, your so-called Friendly Henry will haunt me till my dying day.
The lyrics to Candle in the Wind were written by a straight man.
Fair enough. But as with all analyses of original intent, we might look not only to the text's meaning for its author, but for its readers.
Also, as I take to be implicit in many of the above comments, note John's adaptation of the song to Diana. Cultural Studies scholars take note: perhaps there are important textual / contextual penumbrae to the song(s) that tell us about American vs. British takes on the 'dumb' blonde.
Perhaps, also, not.
184: It was bound to happen after this thread.
She was just like our whole country, not young anymore, but not old either; a little breathless, very beautiful, maybe a little stupid, maybe a lot smarter than she seemed. And she was looking for something -- I think she wanted to be good. Look at the men in her life -- Joe DiMaggio, Arthur Miller, maybe the Kennedys. Look at how good they seem!... And she was vulnerable, too. She was never quite happy, she was always a little overweight.
Jesus. Talk about making gophers out of molehills!
Ogged's sentence of "she has no needs of her own" was entirely wrong. She has a passle of needs--she just makes you believe that you could be the one to fill them, that you will be kinder and better than all those other galoots, that you are the savior whose desire is purer than all the others, the one who won't hurt her. She creates a possibility that sexual desire and conquest, which is in its real world manifestation messy, and sometimes hostile, could be innocent, even righteous. That's a powerful fantasy--to be sexual and to be good.
I don't think she's attractive because she doesn't look like anything. She's a little overweight (or is that really over?) so her face is sort of formless, none of the individual features that make up her face are anything but bland. People keep saying 'she's this, she's that' - and that's the advantage of basically having a non-face: people can project onto you any particular idea they want and there's nothing to contradict the idea.
To restate that, she's a penciled-in yellow upside down U, two dark slashes, a long vertical slash, and red pencil lip abstraction formed in a kiss, and a rounded-V to make the chin. (Or 'chin') Woo! Marilyn Monroe!
That's why she could act 'well'. Any simple expression easily and automatically overrode the nullness of her. (This is a commonality amoung actors.) Which she did not much use to any effect.
Anyways, so now's she's fascinating because nobody can agree on what she is/was.
If she were alive and young, she'd be a touch chick or a feminist ideal or hot sex pot or something, because she would have a broader range of choices amoungst 'schtick'.
Two blondes who used sex appeal and played dumb to get famous. Hilton may not compare well, but she can be compared. I can grasp why Marilyn Monroe maintains a grip on the American imagination. The one I can't for the life of me figure out is Princess Diana.
Princess Diana: same as above.
Hilton: tabloid fodder. Famous for being famous.
Anna Nicole Smith: Person Marilyn Monroe was trying to play.
Pamela Anderson: see Paris Hilton.
I don't get the appeal of any of those.
ash
['Actual personality as opposed to pre-packaged personality option good!']
Some say that ash was abandoned at birth by his mother Marilyn and never forgave her.
And his mother was NOT AT ALL overweight. The Twiggy era is past.
Hey, check out Vox Day's latest.
But first ask yourself, "Where does he get his hair cut? And can I get an appointment?"
Thanks Ben. I feel stupider already.
I really wanted to think that was a spoof of some sort.
ash,
I think you are burned out. That was harsh.
Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.
Yeah, it does.
I'd like to sidle up to him, wink as I handed him my hotel room key, and then, when he got there, sodomize him with a heated curling iron. If he tried to complain, I'd say, "Hey, you were going to fornicate; you're really not in a position to complain. Besides, we're just mara anyway, so enjoy it."
Haha, Tia beat me to it. I was thinking of killing people for not honoring their mothers, but the curling iron is much... hottter.
Thanks guys -- all I can do when presented with such a breathtakingly hateful piece is ridicule the author's appearance, I'm glad others are better able to talk about the problems in his writing.
Re: 195
Best response to Vox Dei ever. Although mine was the same as Cala's in 194.
What is wrong with the man?
Shorter Vox Day: If you don't get your morality from the Bible, you have no right to complain when you get raped.
Vox Dei
*slaps forehead*
Of course!
Well it does explain the world's absurdity.
Shorter Vox Day: I haven't actually read the Bible, either, as there are whole sections on how rape is bad and how it is different from fucking for fun. (Dinah? Angry brothers kicking the shit out of people and their foreskins? Notice they didn't kick the shit out of her, too?)
I can't critique it much beyond that; he starts off by assuming that everyone woman who claims date rape actually wanted to have sex. I'm wondering when the decision to fornicate attaches; when she decides to go on a date? When she comes back to his dorm room to watch a movie? When she laughes at his godawful hair?
I just meant, I hadn't seen the connection until LB made it explicit.
Geez. That guy is pretty full of himself.
What. a. turd.
It is bad enough when one feels compelled to join Mensa but to then advertise the fact is pitiful.
I wonder if mister smartypants knows that men can be raped?
Now all we need is for VD to show up here, PD-style.
Is he really saying that people who are not 100% morally "pure" have no right to complain when people commit crimes against them? I stole a candy bar when I was 6, guess it's open season on me for all the murderers and armed robbers in the world.
I wonder if Mr. Smartypants knows that consent is the difference between rape and fornication even within Christianity? Given most of Christianity's preoccupation with sex and women's purity, this distinction is pretty well clear.
It's not the Christian response to blame the victim (I don't claim that it often hasn't been, but that it's usually Christianity + some other factor, not anything Christ said and usually not in bare Catholic teachings (as opposed to practice), at least.).
The reason women aren't screwing you, VD, isn't because the feminists got to them and told them stories about consent. It's because of your hair.
I stole a candy bar when I was 6
Get ready for the curling iron, Matt.
I suppose I'd only be getting what I deserve.
*runs away and hides*
another reason they aren't screwing him is that he is the type to write essays in defense of rape.
"It is, I have been reliably informed, nauseating, vile and hateful to assert that women are capable of bearing responsibility for their actions."
This just makes zero sense. Being raped is an "action"? It's something women do to themselves? Does he even mention men once in that article?
And whose responsibility is that haircut?
Something about that Vox Day essay struck me as familiar--the complete mischaracterization of Buddhist thought, the offhand reference to Nietzsche--and then it hit me:
Vox Day is the real-life version of Otto from A Fish Called Wanda!
And I'm pretty sure the Hindu term for "illusion" is "Maya", not "Mara" (who is a typical destroyer goddess).
i am coming late to this thread, and bitchphd has said almost everything i would have. (rock on, b.)
but! i wanted to say: i have selectively identified with MM for a long time. i am young, blonde, soft-featured like MM, and even 50 years after MM's time i have huge trouble with people's perceptions of me because of the blondeness, not so much within academia (where ppl are trained to be self-conscious) but more outside of it. if i answer the question "what do you do" with "phd program at Stodgy Famous Ivy League", ppl very often follow up by asking if i plan to teach high school. [um, NO]. condescension, flirting from middle-aged and old men, not being taken seriously, being treated rudely because i don't look "powerful," especially in regions outside the east coast where my appearance is more easily translated into the right age and social role.
MM was adept at turning the crappy suffering-causing stereotypes to her own material advantage. even if my methods run to menswear more than boobs, i'd like to have her finesse.
MM was fully aware of the trade-offs she was making, which is all the more heart-breaking for me:
"That's the trouble, a sex symbol becomes a thing. But if I'm going to be a symbol of something, I'd rather have it sex than some other things we've got symbols of."
so, i'm being way more serious than the rest of you, which is never a good idea, but i did want to say this.
But (via Silvana) VD does say he has sex!
If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know.
He does seem to be a bit of a fornicator, though.
212 completely pwns.
by the way, the attraction to vulnerable-looking women is certainly not over, and also certainly not just an american thing.
i got the most catcalling, wolfwhistling, flashing of dicks, groping, and general hassling the year i was 14. and i probably looked about 12. so think about that, parents.
Those seem like different kinds of vulnerability, mmf! I take Monroe's vulnerability to be a kind of wounded gentleness, whereas a fourteen year-old is just basically a defenseless victim. That's not very precise, but they do seem different.
MMF, you're not my sister, are you?
Her naturally blonde hair is also naturally curly, which means that she looks like she went to a hair salon in Nashville and got their $300 special do.
If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know.
How the fuck does that stretch the definition? Does he think that consent means 'woman on top' or something? Is it consented to as long as no one was beaten? I'm sorry to keep harping on this but this guy is really fucking pissing me off.
I was hit on by a man when I was 15 who was very creepy. Talked about how underage sex laws (the A column in the WSJ that week) were oppressing women, didn't I agree? Then asked me out.
Two weeks later I saw him again. At my dad's 25-year high school reunion.
Ew ew ew.
Ignoring Otto's insane essay for the sake of my sanity, why were you at your Dad's 25-year high school reunion? Chaperoning to make sure they don't dance too close?
It's too bad none of the women VD or any of his friends have raped pressed charges.
How the fuck does that stretch the definition?
He's making some moronic point about explicit verbal negotiations, and how most people don't have them before sex. (Although that, I think, gets overstated as a matter of fact. Maybe I just talk about stuff more than most people, but most times I've had sex, there were things said that explicitly indicated consent.)
He says "have not given consent." Consent can be verbal or non-verbal. By his own admission, he's a rapist.
And I'm with you, LB: I'd say that the vast majority of the times I've had sex with someone, there was, in fact, explicit verbal consent at some point.
w/d, family picnic the day after the reunion. Ew. ew. ew.
I'm trying to think... yeah, there was explicit verbal consent. (Kind of a byproduct of limiting sex to coupledom).
Charitably, I'm guessing VD isn't a rapist, but did not have a situation set-up in Fantasy Land where he asked "may I have sex with you this evening at 8pm" and received a "yes, please, use the side door" in response. But, like, torch straw-men much? Has any woman ever claimed to be raped because she didn't have a formal 'ask-me-nicely' scenario?
Why be charitable? The guy is arguing in favor of rape.
Agree: explicit verbal consent is very hott.
Largely because I think saying that he is a rapist (in an actual, not in Fantasy-Land Consent World) gives him too much credit for his argument against Evil Feminists ® who hate his hair.
No one is saying that 'consent' means 'drawn out, elegant request for and acceptance of coitus'; if that's what he means by consent, then it seems that one should deny he's a rapist. If I agree that he's a rapist, then I'm conceding that to qualify for 'feminist consent', I've got some trumped-up ritual in mind when all I really need is, 'you wanna?' 'Okay!'
Why should I accept that he's got any clue about the notion of consent?
#218 your point is well taken, ogged, except that it was probably not just an age issue. believe me, i spent a fair bit of ages 15-18 consciously working on getting rid of the vulnerability - projecting more confidence and unapproachability on the street. and (arg) the subway car.
Cala, that's a good point, but I'm less charitable, I guess (and kind of cranky tonight). "You wanna? Okay!" is verbal consent, as is "fuck me now" as is "ready? Yes!" and all the other things people say while having sex.
But I really am quite willing to say that the arguments he is making encourage rape.
Never mind, read the guy's blog.
Retracted. He's not a confused guy who is worried that 'date rape' might mean 'what if I wasn't good and she regrets it?' but thinks that 'date rape' means, 'we all know women say no when they mean yes, and sometimes don't say no when I'm busy thrusting my cock down their throat.'
Not worth the time. Also, shouldn't it be Populi? What is a Popoli?
Let's talk about boots. BPhD, you're the expert on boots. Do you like cowboy boots, especially if they're in a festive burgundy color, or is my fashion sense gone with my sanity?
What is a Popoli?
Vatican pizza crust.
My feelings on cowboy boots are mixed. I like them too, but somehow when I've owned them I've never felt they were really "me." I do have a weakness for the really elaborately detailed and worked ones, though, and I can imagine myself giving in, yet again, to the desire to be a cowboy boot girl. And I'll admit right up front that cowboy boots on cowboys? Lawd have mercy, woman, I think I feel faint. I need to lie down...
I want you to buy them, so I can live vicariously.
as long as you don't tuck your pants into the boots.
that is what everybody is doing in paris. (where i live).
bah!!
(italian women seem to pull it off better, but they are usually skinnier and wearing much tighter pants)
I've never owned a pair! So this might be fun. I haven't tried any on yet. Will have to see if they fit my weirdo feet. (Why are all shoes based on a last that assumes feet are the same width from toes to heels? Who has feet like that?)
as long as you don't tuck your pants into the boots.
This is happening all over NYC as well. It makes most women look stumpy, I'm afraid.
About your boots, Cala: have you already bought them?
Cross-posted 237 with 236. Since you haven't bought them yet, I'm voting no.
Oh cripes, yes, don't tuck your pants into your boots, that's just embarrassing. Let the pants pull up when you sit down and cross your leg if you want to flash the tooling on the side of the boot--a li'l subtlety is a good thing.
I also advise against wearing 'em with denim skirts. Ick. If you have good legs, though, tights and a miniskirt w/ cowboy boots is a great look.
205: VD might not show up here, but if you make a post criticizing him, especially if you're a woman, he'll probably link to it and his commenters will come over and harass you.
And he'll say that you're stupid, or perhaps illogical, or emotional, or maybe all three.
Oh, and did you know that he doesn't think women should be allowed the vote?
I can't pull off the tight pants + boots look. I'm kind of short and have muscular legs, so I look a bit like a little tank when I do that.
(They're not 'good' legs, unfortunately. Not lanky enough.)
silvana: That was the point when I realized he wasn't worth the electrons.
Vox is a macho, violent guy who really believe that the toughest guy should be boss, as in the middle ages. I'm sure he regrets that he can't silence his critics by challenging them to hand-to-hand combat. Women are not his only problem.
Well, sure, having to go outside in order to punch a ballot only exposes you to justifiable rape.
Yeah -- any self-proclaimed Christian that brags about having bested 1000 men in fights and lost to only 200! probably is a bit of a weenie.
(We already knew he misread the Bible.)
Yeah, I don't have good legs either. So sad. I have to admit that's one reason I don't have cowboy boots: I haven't figured out what to really wear them with yet, b/c the unfortunate tendency to cut mid-calf does create that tank look with so many things...
For not having good legs? Puhleeze, Mr. Skinny.
Double jeopardy, no can do.
Besides, for better or for worse, remember?
Come on, B. I'm too short for him anyway.
Oh, we're all too short/slutty/makeup-wearing/shoe-crazy for O.
But who isn't? Really, he's pretty much left with Vox Day, a curling iron, and some swimming videotapes.
we're all too short/slutty/makeup-wearing/shoe-crazy for O.
I'm not.
Apostropher, ya gotta decide: me or Ogged?
There's enough apo for ogged and B to share.
No one wants to touch that one, eh? I confess that thoughts of rubbing the hairy apostrophical belly only to have b on the other side, eyeing me suspiciously don't do much for me.
Me either, but then, the spark went out of our relationship a long time ago, didn't it?
You know you were banned almost twenty comments ago, right?
I'm having PTSD flashbacks and I think I'm going to go cry now.
My bicep feels bigger just reading that.
Yeah, my bicep can read.
And his mother was NOT AT ALL overweight. The Twiggy era is past.
She wasn't? News to me.
Some say that ash was abandoned at birth by his mother Marilyn and never forgave her.
ash,
I think you are burned out. That was harsh.
Could be. I live in a country where the only real people are on TV; dead actors who used to be on TV or in movies routinely undergo apotheosis such that their worshippers will fight to death to defend them, and mourn them more than their own, and other people will write ten thousand word monographs on their special relationship with said dieties. And publish said utterances in learned journals.
This is treated as a normal occurance.
{blink}
ash
['Why, though, would you be surprised when Caligula becomes leader?']
Lou Reed is so not better than John Cale. I'm sorry, it's just true.
In the same vein, Poe only sounds good filtered through Baudelaire.
I don't agree with that. Poe can sound good on his own. (Baudelaire sounds good too, but my French isn't good enough for me to be able to rely on my judgment on that count.)
Is this going to be an argument about individual taste? I really like the Black Cat, for instance, but I also have a recording of a few stories read dramatically, and most of them come across well.
Unnecessary pedantry: "Black Cat" - story, not novel.
What, you don't like "The Raven"? None of the stories?
I don't agree with that. Poe can sound good on his own.
In a spastic fit the other night, I re-read The Purloined Letter. It's Holmes and Watson! Doyle filed off the serial numbers and stole it wholesale! Tsk.
I have no idea why I didn't notice this earlier.
ash
['Perhaps because I was 13?']
I thought Poe was widely acknowledged as a pioneer in the field of ratiocinative stories.
I think she's saying she prefers "La chute de la maison Usher" et autres histoires extraodinaires.
(There are likely grammatical errors in this post.)
All I recall of "The Black Cat" is the whole-body squeam that shuddered through me when the protagonist … eyeball … yeeeee.
Pioneer--yes. Would his reputation really have emerged from the similar literary hacks without Baudelaire's exegeses?
Then the cat walls the dude up and pines for his lover by the sea.
There's a difference between saying "Baudelaire brought Poe to light" and "Poe only sounds good in Baudelaire's voice."
My question was directed at ash's comment, actually, and wasn't meant to prop up Poe's rep. Moreover, even if he would have been unrecognized if not for Baudelaire, that doesn't mean that he's only tolerable filtered through Baudelaire. Completely different! If that were the case, his reputation might well still be a shambles. It's like saying that Boccaccio is only good filtered through Chaucer. (Or Shakespeare.) Let's say that were true, it would imply that no one reads Boccaccio straight anymore, since he's only good in others' renditions. When in fact, Famous Women has been at the top of the Times bestseller list for the past twelve weeks.
I thought Poe was widely acknowledged as a pioneer in the field of ratiocinative stories.
Agreed. I like Poe too! However, he isn't highbrow literati so much as Southern gentlemen in style. Also, he was drunk as a skunk most of the time. So he's not exactly modern or European, is he?
The question is, is über-sophistication the only thing allowed? Is someone arguing that Poe was pure hack? (Shakespeare?) Or is it simply that modern readers are better trained, so Poe's then-sophistication is now quaint?
My point about Holmes v. Dupuy is mostly that there was a whole lotta plagarizin' goin' on, (which goes entirely unremarked), for people to be as uptight about sin as they are these days. Given the past track record, I wouldn't be surprised that academic historians might sort of 'forget' that they slapped in a coupla pages from someone else's book.
Which is not to say it's good.
ash
['This comment may make sense.']
Still, I would argue that any aesthetic-philosophical content in Poe would have gone entirely overlooked formany decades had Baudelaire not taken the Poe cause up. Just read the pre- or anti- French theory Americanists for an example (Daniel Hoffman is representative). My MPhil advisor, who'd published on Poe's theory, begged me not to put Poe on my orals. After teaching the interesting (Baudelaire-derived) theory of Poe in class, I found myself explaining in office hours why contemporary critics laughed at Poe's style. (NB: this was in Germany.)
At the very least, Baudelaire rescued Poe from the usual fate of interesting literary hacks of the nineteenth century and elevated him--as he did De Quincey--into Representative Minor Author.
That's very interesting, but there seem to be three things here.
1. Poe's appeal to a general reader (which is where I see myself in this).
2. The appeal of Poe's theory (which I don't know anything about: is this explicit theory by Poe, or theory of Poe by others?)
3. How Poe became a renowned author, but still not a Major one.
I can't say anything really about 2 and 3, but I'd be interested in knowing more.
EB, I've got all kinds of opinions on every one of your points, but I'll have to address them tomorrow.
Short version: there were a lot of entertaining 19th-c hack writers. Poe had a something that Baudelaire picked up on. Baudelaire liked to televate non-competiors in the hack-press. Poe, like De Quincey, served as a w0onderful, non-threatening proxy for Baudelaire.
Baudelaire is now perhaps the major poet/aesthetic thinker of the 19th-c, according to French academics and thinkers influenced by the French model. It's hard to underestimate how English/American literary scholars have resisted this idea.
Hey, thanks for replying to all of this. I'm a fan - again, as a general reader - of both Poe and Baudelaire (particularly Spleen) but aside from knowing of their connection, I don't know much about it, so I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to say.
#289
well, who would English/American critics nominate?
(although i have to disagree with you and say that Walter Benjamin was the greatest aesthetic thinker of the 19th c., unless you are going to quibble and say he was born too late)
#289
well, who would English/American critics nominate?
(although i have to disagree with you and say that Walter Benjamin was the greatest aesthetic thinker of the 19th c., unless you are going to quibble and say he was born too late)
sorry about the double-posting.
but since i'm back here, i will add to the boot conversation: at least it is too cold now for the Formal Shorts trend.
although it was kind of fun having out of towners visit and counting the number of Formal Shorts + boots on the street with them. in tweed and pinstripe and all that. for wearing to work, yes.
Jackmormon -- I know nothing of Baudelaire but I usually read Poe as filtered through Borges. Not sure what this means -- I liked Poe as a lad, before I ever heard of Borges; then I found out about Borges and liked him even more; when I have reread Poe post-Borges, I found my take on the stories influenced by the Argentine. Is Borges playing the same role for me that Baudelaire is for you? Should I read Baudelaire?
I know nothing about literary theory but is Whitman a good American nominee for major poet/aesthetic thinker of the 19th-c, or does he not have enough aesthetic theory? From his poetry it seems as though he must have enough aesthetic theory.
Wordsworth is also a nominee surely, except possibly not 19th c (I also have never been able to get with much of his poetry).
I also think 268 is contrarian in a wrong way.
268: Certain Lou Reed albums are head and shoulders better than certain John Cale albums and vice versa. Maddeningly inconsistent artists, the both of them.
If one is speaking about major poet/aesthetic thinker of the 19th century in terms of who is important to contemporary writers as a jumping off point for their own theory and criticism, Baudelaire seems as big as any other and bigger than most. If one is thinking in terms of the major poet/aesthetic thinker who loomed largest in the eyes of his contemporaries, I think the answer would be Wagner. Not that they thought of him primarily as a poet, of course, but music looms over 19th art (of almost all kinds) and aesthetics like nothing else, and Wagner is pretty much at the center of the phenomenon.
Baudelaire also translated Longfellow. Both Longfellow and Poe had a rather mechanical technical, formula for crafting verse, to which they added exotic or gothic subjects. IE, they worked as craftsmen and not by inspiration -- they were escaping from the smarminess of expressive romanticism.
Baudelaire picked this up and ran with it, and pretty soon it became orthodoxy through Pound, Eliot, Auden, et al.
The latest theory I heard is that Poe dies of rabies, not alcoholism.
http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/news-releases-17.html
http://my.hrw.com/la/nsmedia/eolit05_09_sampler/page187.htm
Poe was a Southerner and sort of looked like John Wilkes Booth, and I say he was guilty of something.
296: I say the tie is broken by the VU albums with Reed and not Cale.
John,
And his first name was "Edgar," so, yeah, definitely guilty of something.
The correctives to Wagner are Mussorgsky and Satie. Wagner's productivity and his godawful seriousness and pretentiousness all count against him. If he had had the decency to write about a fifth as much stuff and die young of alcoholism, Wagner would have been OK, and the two world wars would not have taken place.
The German seriousness infected American life through the Straussians, who taught people to say that anyone they disagreed with "is simply not serious". Past Strauss this attitude traces back to Schmitt, Hegel, Holderlin, and other horrible people. The only German who escaped from seriousness was Heine, and he was a Jew with English connections who lived in France (his birth name was "Harry" after an English family friend).
Nietzsche tried seriously not to be serious, and he pretty much failed. But give him points for effort.
Wagner's productivity and his godawful seriousness and pretentiousness all count against him.
I'm not an admirer, myself, aside perhaps from the overture to Tannhäuser. But them 19th century folk could not get themselves enough.
John Emerson--
I did not know that Baudelaire translated Longfellow. I should have. It's a good fit for Baudelaire, though.
Mmf!--
But Benjamin is Baudelaire on Marx.
For Anglo 19th-c critics, the options are probably Coleridge, Hazlitt, Carlyle, and Eliot. The critic with the most actual influence over the Anglo literary scene of at least the early 19th c was the cranky contrarian Francis Jeffrey, of the Edinburgh Review.
Wagner only sounds good filtered through Spinal Tap.
Poe's verses rhythm isn't very complex or interesting. It is pretty sing-songy. French is a less-stressed language than english, so translating Poe's verse to French improves the poems. They should also be better in Japanese under this theory.
Poe's formula for writing verse was probably what made his rhythms sing-songy. He wrote by rule.
The skies they were ashen and sober;
The leaves they were crisped and sere-
The leaves they were withering and sere;
It was night in the lonesome October
Of my most immemorial year;
It was hard by the dim lake of Auber,
In the misty mid region of Weir-
It was down by the dank tarn of Auber,
In the ghoul-haunted woodland of Weir.
.................
I was a child and she was a child,
In this kingdom by the sea,
But we loved with a love that was more than love,
I and my Annabel Lee;
With a love that the wingèd seraphs of heaven
Coveted her and me.
Also: Cervantes only sounds good filtered through Menard.
I hear that, because you're not really a nation unless you have an epic poem, Longfellow's Hiawatha was modeled after the Kalevala.
The Upanishads only sound good filtered through Dude Where's My Car?
Wagner's music is better than it sounds.
Here in Minnesota there are many authentic Native American placenames, but there are also a certain number cribbed from The Song of Hiawatha.
converter that the Professor had been messing with earlier Marty strip poker Release second safely!.
