Post-Feminist Girlies
Share
In the July 11, 2003 issue of Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman combines his two prior reviews of Legally Blonde 2 and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle with a short introduction that names Chrissy of Three’s Company as the “patron saint” of the protagonists of the two films. His point is that Elle Woods and the “Angels” have “a woman’s right to revel in the sheer fun of being a chicklet” as well as the right to a successful career. Elle Woods is a Harvard-educated lawyer while the action sequences of Charlie’s Angels are “mini spectacles of ‘masculine’ style converted into pure feminine force.” The precedent then is that today’s young women can be girlie and accomplished.
I’m personally not too sure how I feel about this. Perhaps I’m not “post-feminist” (whatever that may mean). In real life, I would have a problem — at least initially — taking Elle Woods seriously. I would certainly be attracted to her, and after learning of her credentials and seeing her in action, I would be sold. In many ways, she is my ideal woman: very feminine and attractive, yet intelligent and accomplished. My girlfriend certainly fits this mold. I could just be intimidated by such a set of personal attributes, since I feel only slightly above avaerage (at best) in most respects. Or I could be overwhelmed by the possibility of having my cake and eating it too.
Whatever the case may be, Legally Blonde 2 and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle set a precedent for womanhood that is both strong and feminine. I like it because I think that’s what a woman should be.
caroline on 16 July 2003 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
this had better work! are you overwhelmed by going out with me? having your cake and *ahem* eating it too?
caroline on 16 July 2003 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
oh, also, what do you mean by “feminine”? i think that term needs to be questioned and defined if possible, which i’m not convinced it is. “femininity” varies from culture to culture, region to region, person to person. is femininity the opposite of masculininty? but if it is, does that even mean anything? i think yes, there are traits that are more prevalent in females than males, whether by nature or nurture, but defining women in terms of their “femininity” or lack thereof is limiting. and while, yes, it is good to see that women don’t have to look like men in order to compete with men, i question the idea of “strength” being based on masculine conceptions of it.
phil on 16 July 2003 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
Ah, oral sex double entendres.
I’m not overwhelmed, but you can be intimidating. You are very beautiful and very intelligent.
I don’t want this to devolve into a semantic war. I think that “feminine” in our culture at this time involves focusing resources on beauty, grooming, and fashion; a great interest in “cute” things; a strong investment in interpersonal relationships. The attribute of strength that I use in the entry emcompasses willpower, determination, and intelligence. To me, that’s a human conception, but if you think it’s a masculine definition, what would the feminine concept be?
caroline on 16 July 2003 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
the “strength” that people talk about in “charlie’s angels” and “legally blonde” are the ability to kick-ass and to compete in the legal world, both largely recognized as the domain of men. so their “strength,” or at least the most obvious ones are “masculine strengths.” what i mean by that is that what’s celebrated is their ability to take on traditionally masculine traits and compete with men in vastly male domains. which isn’t to say that that’s a bad thing or that their “feminine” strengths, like friendship, aren’t also celebrated. and of course it’s good to see that a woman doesn’t have to look like a man to be on equal footing with him, but i find the concept of “femininity” being elle woods– fluffy, superficial, silly– offensive. in that character in particular, it’s not to be expected that she could hack it at law, which yeah, it doesn’t look like she could. but it almost seems like she succeeds in part by manipulating people with her hyper”feminine” charms and catching them off-guard. something similar happens in “charlie’s angels”– jiggle to distract, then trap. which, i dunno, maybe that’s a source of strength. i know i do it myself (though often feel guilty about it)but i find elle’s “femininity” in particular to be limiting. i dunno, i know this a ramble, but i’ve very ambivalent about the whole thing
caroline on 16 July 2003 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
what i meant to get at with all of that is that the big point of those movies is to show that women can look silly/fluffy/sexy and still compete with men and that’s “strength.” and like i said, it’s not as if it’s only their “masculine” character traits that are celebrated, but that’s what people harp on. as cheesy as they are, movies like “how to make an american quilt” or “fried green tomatoes” or even “divine secrets of the yaya sisterhood” actually do a better job at showing feminine “strength” *because* they recognize and celebrate the differences.
phil on 16 July 2003 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
I think you’re wrong about Charlie’s Angels. There’s not a fight in the movie where their opponents (who are mostly men) go easy on them because they’re women, or get distracted by the jiggle. Everyone is on equally footing, and the Angels win by being better fighters. There are numerous instances of them playing dumb girls to unsuspecting males and duping the guys.
With Elle Woods, my interpretation is different. I think the silliness and fluff is merely superficial, the way she chooses to decorate the canvass of her body and her persona. I take many of her comments not as sincere, but self-deprecating or self-mocking (like many of the things said by the men on “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”). Underneath all the pink clothes and Gucci bags is a smart, hard working woman.
caroline on 16 July 2003 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
i also forgot to mention the significance of the fact that suspension of disbelief is crucial in these two films, which i think really undermines any “feminist” message they might have
phil on 16 July 2003 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
Fair enough. I can see how traits like “hard working” and “determination” are masculine and thus imbued into my concept of successful. If that sounds disparaging, I don’t mean it to be. Consider that biologically, men are single-minded and women easily multitask. What are the terms “hard working” and “determination” but synonyms for “focused”?
Women value relationships, and that’s their strength. It’s why they tend to talk during movies more than men — so they can connect to their friends around them rather than solitarily watching the film. It’s why they would make far better world leaders than men.
caroline on 16 July 2003 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
excuse me, but what’s more “hardworking” than multi-tasking? and i think women are as determined, if not more, than men. they accomplish a lot in their lives, but it tends not to be all in one field, so it’s often not as easily recognized. the women in these movies, while accomplished, tend to be accomplished in a very masculine-defined way, which isn’t a bad thing, but again, it’s just showing women conforming to male-centered ideals (and looking pretty doing it) without really exploring the possibilities of women’s complexities, or at least not doing as much as they coud. maybe in the future….
Darren Franks on 27 August 2003 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
CAFT was phat…the idea that only men can be action heros is fucked and lame, who wouldn’t wanna get their ass kicked by them three…CA is all still about sex and I for one support this new tough girl sexiness…those who don’t…well shit…don’t watch…
LB2, didn’t see it but I liked the 1st one for the most part…’cept that lil rat dog she has…I’d throw it under some lawn mower and call it a accident…
sorry to drop down on da debate…like I know shit…