I've been reading a book called "Backlash" recently and it has a whole chapter listing all the movies in the 80s and reasons why they are all anti-feminist.
The author claims that Pretty Woman is an anti-feminist film because the main character played by Julia Roberts gives up her career to become a companion to the character played by Richard Gere.
So what do you think, should we burn all copies of the patriarchally oppressive Pretty Woman on this basis?
2007-07-11 20:49:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Did she have a choice in the matter? I know I'd love to stop working. The saying is: "If you marry money, you'll earn it every day."
2007-07-12 01:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, one could argue that Vivian went from one form of slavery (the sex industry) to another (close companion) and the inference is that she has a more than decent shot at becoming a partner in the latter enterprise as opposed to a victim in the former.
True, Vivian was "her own boss," but as with many small entrepreneurs, she would probably have been "bought out" or forced out soon enough by someone more powerful. The thing with the sex industry, in the US it's illegal except in Nevada. Therefore she faced harassment from police, and threat to her physical safety by not only her clients but her direct (independent hookers) competition and larger players in her industry (pimps).
Also, because of its illegal status, she was forced to associate with other nefarious types - increasing her risks of not only police arrest but also from being caught in the middle of say, a drug raid, while servicing her clients.
Finally, consider that despite her precautions and frequent checkups, the risk of contracting STDs and CDC-defined-AIDS increased with each service rendered - even from her "regular" clients.
Considering that she only made $100/hour with no benefits, perks, bonuses or promotions, that's not much of a career if you ask me.
Also what is the average lifespan of a hooker's career? 10 years? Maybe 15? What happens when she gets older and no longer attracts clients as she once did? Again, lack of advancement opportunities doesn't make street-walking the most advantageous of career choices.
As companion to a wealthy businessman, she would be expected to limit her services to one partner. This would represent a decrease in serious risk (assuming he too limited his requirements to one service provider).
Also, it was explicitly stated that "she wanted the fairy tale" when presented with being "provided for" by the Edward character (the final Breakfast Scene). By her own definition, the fairy tale included personal commitment. So was it really relenquishing a career? Or was it more like leaving a dead-end enterprise and entering into a long-term agreement with a much more powerful partner- thus offering her greater opportunities?
2007-07-12 09:40:04 · answer #2 · answered by Barbara B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IF she really said that, then I think it's ridiculous. Put it whichever way you want, but prostitution is not really what you call a "career". What's more, in the film, you obviously know that she doesn't like what she is doing. Also, in the film, they actually fall in love.
Did she give other reasons why it is anti-feminist?
2007-07-12 13:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by Offkey 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not quite how she saw it. She claimed it was misogynist because his influence made her far less outspoken and independent than she originally was. Giving up a career as a hooker isn't really something to moan over.
2007-07-12 16:21:11 · answer #4 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It's misogynist because it's a re-telling of the Cinderella myth, where a woman's problems are solved by a knight on a white horse.
2007-07-12 09:11:32 · answer #5 · answered by stormsinger1 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the Cinderella myth - only in this version, Julia Roberts has to be truly gratful for being recued from a life of sin.
It also tries to serve up the myth of a whore with a heart of gold. Women in the trade will tell you - (if they can speak for cynical laughter!) - that there's no such animal.
Just imagine it - out in the street - after every john - (who resents having to pay for it & will cheat if he can), there's another man - with his hand out.
2007-07-12 04:04:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Burn all copies? Not really, Adolph. Perhaps just not renting it.
2007-07-12 03:53:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come on... he didn't stick a gerbil up her butt or anything. I think it's anti-masculinist.
2007-07-12 03:55:45 · answer #8 · answered by Nep 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
dude, that's funny shiz
2007-07-12 03:56:04 · answer #9 · answered by *I CURED My Yellow Teeth* 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋