Scent of a Woman
I want to raise some alternative views to those expressed in Gabrielle Carey's review of Scent of a Woman (GLW #94).
Is it fair to say, as does Carey, that the movie is about "pure and unadulterated objectification of women and big-pat-on-the-back-male-mateshippery"? Or is this a bit too simplistic? Are there other themes which are worthwhile?
The main character, played by Al Pacino, is certainly an obnoxious retired colonel with a very limited appreciation of women, though I question the immediate "misogynist" label that she attaches to this. The colonel is also someone who, through his own stupidity, blinded himself 15 years ago, and has lived a lonely and embittered life since. He intensely despises himself and is now preparing to suicide.
Among other themes, this film raises, albeit in a Hollywood fashion, questions relating to life and death. Pacino admirably portrays someone undergoing a rapid physical deterioration as he mentally contemplates his forthcoming death. The link between the mind and the body is clear as he programs his body to slow down its functioning in preparation for its final demise.
It is only in the moment of coming face to face with his own death, gun in hand and being convinced not to use it by the Ivy League youth, that he is able to begin to face life again. Rather than death being something separate and apart from life, it is very much a part of it. Rather than the fear of death, it is more often the fear of life that determines our existence. By brutally facing death, he is able to begin to confront his fear of life.
There is a danger in passing judgment on any cultural work of applying too narrow and limited criteria. If these are not met, then the work is hurled out the door with a vehemence that denies the opportunity for alternative viewpoints. If every film that is not decisively "ideologically sound" in its entirety is given so damning a review as Carey's, then many readers would think twice about seeing them and developing their own opinions. That would be a pity.
Anne Casey
Leichhardt NSW
Liberal heart
Senator Bishop's call for politics of the "heart" in the Liberal Party seems only to apply in certain (politically expedient) policy areas. In February 1991 she had no problem with the mass murder of at least 100,000 Iraqi soldier conscripts and civilians by the Allied forces in the Gulf. When questioned as to whether or not trade sanctions might have been a less brutal means of forcing an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, she said she was fundamentally opposed to trade sanctions because they distort world trade. Perhaps Senator Bishop has had a heart transplant since then?
Bruce Knobloch
Malabar, NSW.
Brain Sex
I wish to applaud Karen Fredericks for her clear and courageous review of the SBS documentary Brain Sex. I (a male) found these programs distressingly one sided and unscientific. It is terrifying that such blatant misogyny, masquerading as scientific investigation is not only tolerated but is paraded upon publicly funded television.At a time when women are threatened with the loss of the benefits that they have struggled for, it is intolerable that such dangerous nonsense is tolerated. I intend to write to SBS and voice my concern and I urge all other readers to do the same.
Ananda Barton
Manjimup WA
Women and class
Responding as briefly as possible to Michael Rafferty's "Women in the Money", GLW March 17:
First, regarding the "decade of the femocrat", Marion Sawer had this to say in the introduction to her book, Sisters in Suits: "The future of [the position of women in the institutions in Australia] will depend on the capacity of feminists to challenge effectively the economic paradigms antithetical to the interests of women. The gains have never been secure, particularly in the context of the rise of small government ideology and the influence of gender blind 'economic rationalism'. By the second half of the 1980s, all reforms that were not seen as 'current-account driven' were at risk at the federal level ... Over the past fifteen years, Australian governments have been forced to become more responsive to the needs of women; forced to become aware of problems which 'didn't exist' before, such as domestic violence; forced to become more effective in delivering services to women." (my emphasis)
I'm wondering if Sawer would agree with Rafferty's assertion that capitalism is a society divided primarily by class, not by gender?
Moving on to the "smaller but perhaps more significant group of women — those who become major owners of capital": First, Janet Holmes a' Court, whose story prompts Rafferty to say, "[her story] does not just remind us that capitalism is a society divided primarily by class, not by gender." Excuse me, but have you noticed that this woman came into ownership of wealth because of the death of her husband? Is she the only one of her gender, apart from the unfortunate Robin Greenburg, who you can point to in the supposedly "significant group of women" — bearing in mind that women make up more than 50% of the population — to demonstrate that society is divided primarily by class, not gender?
Greenburg seemingly misappropriated/mismanaged some millions of dollars, though there's doubt she accomplished this deed on her own, and she received a seventeen-year sentence, which I suspect she will serve in full.
And Messrs Connell, Bond, Skase, and I forget all the other shonky career-capitalist shufflers of misgotten gains — why aren't they in jail for years and years and years? (Is jail the answer
Our society is divided primarily by class, not gender? Then why do women still receive less in their pay packets than men? Why are so many women in part-time, casual, and contract employment? Why have housewives never had their work recognised, let alone been paid for it? Why can women be paid for looking after other people's children, but not their own? Why are women's opinions and concerns considered less important than those of men?
In the introduction of their two-volume work A History of Their Own, Anderson and Zinsser write, "But all European women, whether queens or nuns, aristocrats or peasants, craftswomen or artists, were subject to ... European culture's largely negative views of women. Considered innately flawed, less valuable and thus inferior to men, all women were supposed to be subordinate to men. This subordination seemed part of the natural order ... These cultural views, expressed in the earliest writings of the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews, changed remarkably little over time."
As you may be aware, these early writers are still quoted to this day by men who are at pains to demonstrate that they are arguing rationally and logically ...
Most certainly the "cultural views" — otherwise known as prejudice — remain to this day; to the extent that if, by their own effort, women make a "middle class"in their own right — however tenuous their position there — or a woman inherits wealth following the death of the man who accumulated it, there's bound to be a man come along and say that "capitalism is a society divided primarily by class, not by gender."
(And since this society operated under capitalism, by what other system are women supposed to make progress in this society from their traditional subordinate position?)
If our society were not divided primarily by gender, Rafferty's statement could not be made — it would be too ridiculous. That it can and has been made is proof to the contrary of what Michael Rafferty would have us believe.
Paddie Cowburn
Malak NT