Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Tashmoo711
Published Letters: 69 Editor's Choice: 12
I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of "Total 180!" But if you're going to cite chapter and verse from "The Feminine Mystique," you might actually want to read the whole thing again. Betty Friedan never advocated the so-called feminist world we have today, where women can choose to have jobs, and maybe day care. She advocated women having a voice in the world around them.
Feminism is not about having a career to brag about, or, on the other hand, kids to brag about, though the Total 180 types are certainly right about the kids having an edge on the bragging rights. When women "opt out" of both mystiques and simply create new businesses and ideas that serve people -- and, notably, serve women -- we will have the feminist world of Friedan's dreams.
Friedan warned about the "privatism" that has intensified, not abated, since the early '60s. She envisioned a feminist world in which public riches were plentiful, not fought over and bid up by ever-more-competitive working women.
If you're going to complain about women being "let out" by their husbands, give equal time to women being "let out" by their employers. Only when women work for themselves and create fully as entrepreneurs will we find equal partnerships in the world. Otherwise, we can look forward to another generation of bitchin' and moanin' over what our men and our employers won't give us.
I find it weird that no one has commented on public versus private. Children need to be taught the difference between public and private behavior. I find a 10-year-old boy's insistence on sitting on his mother's lap not, on the surface, offensive, but I would certainly give it more than just a passing look in a public coffee shop.
One of the greatest gifts we can give children is the distinction between private feelings (which are OK no matter what) and public behavior (which may have to be explained as having not so much to do with feelings as with consideration to those around us). Judging from a lot of kids' behavior, I think we confuse the two. Ditto for behavior inside versus outside the home. Why indeed should we be as repressed inside the home as we are on the sidewalk? And why, conversely, should we let it all hang out in public?
"Violence isn't the answer, Spielberg tells us in 'Munich.' But the artists and filmmakers who are fondest of that handy platitude are never able to tell us what the answer is . . ."
Well, gee, if film directors have the answer to terrorism, we can all just go home. Or maybe "Munich" should have starred Vin Diesel and Sylvester Stallone, blowing away all the bad guys and feeling good about it. Would that have made you happy?
"Munich" doesn't answer any questions; it raises them. That's why I didn't just like, but loved, this movie; it is art. I can see almost every point raised by the reviewer the other way around, particularly the objection to the scene in which Avner makes love to his wife while getting flashbacks to the violence on the tarmac at Munich. This did not trivialize the violence at all. It showed eloquently the two sides of passion, what we would do to protect the people we love, and Avner's doubts about retreating from violence. It shows us precisely that there is no answer, but that we have to go into that painful place to at least look for one.
The fact that Avner did, in the end, renounce violence, didn't sit well with me as an answer, and I don't believe that Spielberg intended it to be an answer at all. His words did not move Efraim. They didn't change history. That was what was meant by the World Trade Center in the background, in case the reviewer is still wondering. (By the way, I believe that visual was flawed; part of the WTC would have still been under construction then--or perhaps construction continued only on the interior.)
If you want "shades of gray," look more closely, because Spielberg delivers them. He delivered them very courageously in "Schindler's List," and he continues the tradition in "Munich." Speilberg never tells us that morality is relative, that right and wrong are not important. He shows us that morality is hard.
Lastly, to comment on the questionable historical basis: This movie is fiction. It is "based on true events" but essentially fictional. Fiction is not true, but in such a work of art as "Munich," fiction is truth.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
