Why must we always imagine even wealthy, privileged women to have been marginalized? Sometimes they lived remarkably comfortable lives compared to men.
Well, as I don't have a subscription to Netflix I am unlikely to ever see this latest adaptation. What is worrying though is that those who have not read Austen's book will see the film and think it a genuine reflection of the story. The taint of feminism poisons everything it touches.
Yes indeed. The general belief that Austen was a feminist has been mainly driven by all the film adaptations over the past 25 years, most of which can't help but include some kind of feminist slant.
Along the same lines of false feminist assumptions, there’s the notion that women’s contributions to science are regularly discounted, sidelined or ignored. A good City Journal article recently goes after Nature magazine for basically lying to uphold this myth. Called The Myth of the Wronged Heroine, if you haven’t seen it already.
Is it by Heather Mac Donald? She is the best. The thinking behind the mythmaking always seems to be that if only women believe they can achieve great things (even if the belief is based on falsehood), they will achieve great things; they're only being held back by societal prejudice. But where is the societal prejudice? When I was in Grade 2 in 1972, my feminist teacher had us all drawing women in hardhats, driving firetrucks, and arresting criminals, and it seemed forced to me even then, obviously a propaganda ploy, because I already knew that nobody had ever indicated to me that I couldn't do those things if I wanted to, and if I had the necessary ability and drive. All I needed was my parents' basic encouragement, and their example of hard work and dedication.
Big fan of Heather Macdonald, too, but no, this is by Nicholas Wade, whom I am not familiar with. Here they distorted the truth about a woman’s contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1960s to make it look like she was discriminated against. It’s evident she was able to pursue the career she wanted at the time and was appropriately recognized. Thanks for responding!
When women make contributions to science, they're usually lauded and supported by the men of the day. To my certain knowledge, this phenomenon goes back at least to Hypatia in very early medieval times and continues through Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin (no relation) and countless others.
For the most part, Jane Austen would be appalled at most of the recent film adaptations of her work. The Emma Thompson/Kate Winslett adaptation of S and S was quite good, but the others all insist on either a feminist slant that would have sent Austen screaming into the night or a bodice-ripper one that she expressly rejected. It's one thing to interpret an author's work, another entirely to contradict it while still using its characters, plot, title, etc.
It's despicable how feminists have claimed Jane Austen and warped her work.
In Seattle a few years ago I was taken by a friend to see a play that was advertised as "Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice" in which the daughters were played by men who had pants on under skirts that had a split up the front, just to make sure nobody in the audience missed the fact that these bearded performers were not actually women. The mother uses noisemakers, including the kind of horns that clowns use, and i don't think a single line from the book. Later, I looked up the writer, who is a feminist quite proud of herself for her "adaptation." How it's feminist to dress men up as Jane Austen's young women characters is beyond me.
On a visit to the Seattle Art Museum, I heard a docent telling a group of girls that women in 19th century Paris were not allowed to go out and paint, or do anything, without a chaperone. I bet Jane Avril would have been surprised to hear that! But it's in complete conformity with how feminists want us to view not only the past, but the present -- women being always and only victims of men.
Well, as I don't have a subscription to Netflix I am unlikely to ever see this latest adaptation. What is worrying though is that those who have not read Austen's book will see the film and think it a genuine reflection of the story. The taint of feminism poisons everything it touches.
Yes indeed. The general belief that Austen was a feminist has been mainly driven by all the film adaptations over the past 25 years, most of which can't help but include some kind of feminist slant.
Along the same lines of false feminist assumptions, there’s the notion that women’s contributions to science are regularly discounted, sidelined or ignored. A good City Journal article recently goes after Nature magazine for basically lying to uphold this myth. Called The Myth of the Wronged Heroine, if you haven’t seen it already.
https://www.city-journal.org/feminist-myths-about-women-in-science
Is it by Heather Mac Donald? She is the best. The thinking behind the mythmaking always seems to be that if only women believe they can achieve great things (even if the belief is based on falsehood), they will achieve great things; they're only being held back by societal prejudice. But where is the societal prejudice? When I was in Grade 2 in 1972, my feminist teacher had us all drawing women in hardhats, driving firetrucks, and arresting criminals, and it seemed forced to me even then, obviously a propaganda ploy, because I already knew that nobody had ever indicated to me that I couldn't do those things if I wanted to, and if I had the necessary ability and drive. All I needed was my parents' basic encouragement, and their example of hard work and dedication.
Big fan of Heather Macdonald, too, but no, this is by Nicholas Wade, whom I am not familiar with. Here they distorted the truth about a woman’s contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1960s to make it look like she was discriminated against. It’s evident she was able to pursue the career she wanted at the time and was appropriately recognized. Thanks for responding!
Cool--I will look it up!
When women make contributions to science, they're usually lauded and supported by the men of the day. To my certain knowledge, this phenomenon goes back at least to Hypatia in very early medieval times and continues through Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin (no relation) and countless others.
For the most part, Jane Austen would be appalled at most of the recent film adaptations of her work. The Emma Thompson/Kate Winslett adaptation of S and S was quite good, but the others all insist on either a feminist slant that would have sent Austen screaming into the night or a bodice-ripper one that she expressly rejected. It's one thing to interpret an author's work, another entirely to contradict it while still using its characters, plot, title, etc.
It's despicable how feminists have claimed Jane Austen and warped her work.
In Seattle a few years ago I was taken by a friend to see a play that was advertised as "Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice" in which the daughters were played by men who had pants on under skirts that had a split up the front, just to make sure nobody in the audience missed the fact that these bearded performers were not actually women. The mother uses noisemakers, including the kind of horns that clowns use, and i don't think a single line from the book. Later, I looked up the writer, who is a feminist quite proud of herself for her "adaptation." How it's feminist to dress men up as Jane Austen's young women characters is beyond me.
On a visit to the Seattle Art Museum, I heard a docent telling a group of girls that women in 19th century Paris were not allowed to go out and paint, or do anything, without a chaperone. I bet Jane Avril would have been surprised to hear that! But it's in complete conformity with how feminists want us to view not only the past, but the present -- women being always and only victims of men.