|
Tuesday 1 August 2006, by Spyder : Tosh! Using the same theory, any male action star is gay subtext, and any movie with an animal lead is trying to promote beastiality! Honestly, trying to use tombraider to suggest a female action star is promoting lesbianism by the inverted gender roles is ridiculous. Its also frankly insulting to the huge amount of woman out there who aren’t gay, suggesting that if they asert themselves, their excercising their own lesbian tendancies. Equating female strength with lesbanism is frankly asurd, and is perpetuating the sort of gender based assumptions that feminists pertain to disagree with. The eighties were wrong to masculinise (i know...) the females, because they didn;t want to see a strong female lead. Liekwise, feminising the male support characters in a female lead is equally pointless, suggesting that weak men need strong women and vice versa, that they cant exist equals. This article is insulting to everyones intellgence. Oh and another thing, Ripley was hardly a de-sexualised female lead character, in the first one she was the lone surviing female against a living embodiment of masculine nature (what do you think Giger was suggesting with the pipes on the back, and large phallus for a head). In the second film she was a mother figure to the lost girl AND hicks by the end. How on earth is that de-sexualised. Only third one, with the shaven head and mens clothes even went part way to wards an a-sexual main character. These comments are an anwser to this article : Joss Whedon - "Wonder Woman" Movie - Lesbian Subtext in Action Movies
|
Sitemap XML