Freedom is a frightening thing. We all have times when we feel like running from responsibility. It's one of the "big four" existential crises: mortality, meaninglessness, loneliness, and freedom. Sometimes, literally and figuratively, the corset appeals. But fantasy is not the same as real life. The same women (or girls) dreaming of their empire-waisted predecessors may also be quite happy with their independent and freedom-filled lives (but maybe just wish that it occasionally came with more silk and lace). Fantasy is not always about what we actually want to live. Sometimes it's about what we know we don't want but still get a thrill out of vicariously experiencing. And I think the fact that this fantasy all takes place with a healthy dose of wit and social commentary is not entirely lost on most readers, just on most Hollywood scriptwriters (who seem singularly allergic to that type of character, unless it's a cop popping off one-liners down the barrel of a gun).

And speaking of Hollywood habits, how seriously irritating is it that every biopic seems to have to center itself around a love story of some sort, even when that story isn't central to the main narrative arch of the actual person's life, and even if facts have to be stretched and warped beyond the point of believability to make it work? This doesn't just happen to biopics about women, either. /A Beautiful Mind/ comes to mind as a film that did the same type of thing with a male protagonist (whose relationship to his wife was idealized to a ridiculous degree, especially if you know anything about his actual life). Sometimes I find myself watching an action movie wishing that the scriptwriters had just dispensed entirely with the incredibly dull and predictable female character who has clearly been thrown in to add a love story element and draw in the couples crowd. Sometimes I feel the same about biopics and their unnecessary (male or female) romantic interests. You'd think some variation on "boy-meets-girl" was the only plot anyone ever cared to watch.

On a side note, I agree completely with the author who said that Darcy would have been a bore (though that same author's statements about modern men seemed ... um ... cringe-worthy). Who wants the "perfect" partner? There's nothing to learn from, no struggles to share, no give-and-take to grow from. I don't want a partner who expects me to be some sort of ideal, either. Blech. Who needs the pressure.

Not that I believe for a second that he'd actually govern this way, but I do like his statement that a government that is honest and peaceful is the one upholding Christian values. Christianity could use a good dose of that these days. Then again, so could our government. Moreso even.

And let's not assume that evangelicals actually vote in lockstep. There's more diversity in their ranks than we think.

I agree it's a great discussion (else I wouldn't have posted on it multiple times). I just don't want to let the issue of how this country treats non-heterosexuals fall by the wayside at the same time. Sometimes as a culture we have a difficult time sustaining conversations about oppressed groups, so I try to make a shout out when it looks to me like they're getting relegated to invisible status, even when it's not on purpose or it's because of a very valuable tangent.

And if you want to talk about groups left out of the discussion of lesbians (and feeling rather invisible in the process, too), let me add bisexuals to the list. Then again we are usually left out of discussions of LGBT issues (despite being right there in the acronym). So I have some notion of what a gay man might feel about the way the issue is handled here. And as for the "T," I wonder also how transgender individuals, and for that matter intersex individuals, figure in to the Broadsheet mission statement.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting we censor anyone, just that Broadsheet take the points you and others are making seriously enough to give us a dedicated space for discussing them (i.e., to write about it themselves and invite said discussion). Like I said, I'm not responsible for how well Broadsheet lives up to its own mission statement. People have made some great points here (and also some good points on another thread about the way social science studies get used here) and I'd love to see some of the Broadsheet contributors respond to them.

I'm torn, in a way, because I feel on the one hand that women tend to get short shrift when it comes to serious discussions of issues in the media, including discussions of gay rights (which right away signifies men more than it does women, since "gay" is an ambiguous term that is sometimes used to signify men only). I understand why Broadsheet attempts to counterbalance that trend. To that extent, I support their purpose, if not always their execution.

On the other hand, when it comes to really looking at gender in context, and feminist though I still happily claim to be, I'm not sure it's helpful to always start out with the male/female binary. For example, is the experience of immigration discrimination primarily one that is determined by gender, or is the experience of being non-heterosexual much more essential to understanding the issue? What, if anything, is there about experiencing this problem as a woman that is different from experiencing it as a man? What other factors (class and national origin especially!) might be as or even more important to take into account. It's a great question that would never have captured my attention were it not for the discussion here.