From: poznikof@fraser.sfu.ca (Kenneth Shane Poznikoff)
Subject: Re: Feminist Perspective of Batman Returns
Keywords: Batman, feminist, confusion, symoblic
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:42:38 GMT


In article <1992Jul23.162110.19123@cbnewse.cb.att.com> you write:
>To start with, I agree with your friend.  You have overanalyzed the movie.
>Secondly, I agree with you that nothing is inadvertent in a movie.  However,
>you are being naive to think that the purpose behind anything that shows
>up on the screen is necessarily what you think it is.

Yeah, I've getting alot of that lately.

>Just a word to the "penologists" out there.  Some of the theories may be
>valid, but consider that almost any shape that is not completely spherical
>and therefore has one axis longer than the other is a candidate for being
>deemed "phallic" by these "penologists".  I don't believe phone poles or
>rockets or wrapping paper tubes were designed by men to celebrate their
>endowment.  A gun with no barrel just doesn't work all that well.  And
>the fact that a gun has a hole in it does not necessarily mean that it
>represents femininity.  Also, the fact that a gun represents power over
>an adversary is not necessarily tied in with the physiognomy of males.
>If males were exactly as they are but had not "nether protuberances"
>and we all reproduced by some other means, I'd say guns would look
>about the same.  And if a man has power over another man by using a bomb,
>and that bomb was shaped like a doughnut, then I'd expect the Freudians
>would be jumping out windows trying to analyze this.  But even though
>the situation had changed, they would still find a way to rationalize
>the sexual content of it from the female aspect.  Just more crap.

This is beautiful.  The truth is, I tend to agree in this point of 
view.  I've been looking for a good way to explain it to others.
this is excellent.

Famous quote:  "Sometimes a cigar is a cigar"

Sometimes its not though.

>> the message is:  women are (should be) (can be) (will be) entitled
>> to equal pay for equal work because they are men's equal.
>
>I think the message is, "If you are thrown out a window by your boss,
>your goodness will enable you to be revived by cats, and then you
>can be an equal supervillain to men and make just as big an ass of
>yourself by first destroying private property."

Ha, ha, ha, ha. :-)  My studies have ruined me.  I can no longer
look at films without over-analysing them.
>
>> acceptable.  This is disturbing because his/her ideologies are 
>> most likely conformant with dominant ideologies -- capitalism 
>> and patriarchy (male dominant society, hateful of women).
>
>So you are saying that "capitalism = male dominant" and
>"patriarchy = hateful of women"?  Consider that some might take the

Oooops!  My intention was to define patriarchy only.  Patriarchy
meaning a male dominant society.  Often with mysogenous overtones.
Mysogeny meaning "hateful of women"

>"patriarchy = hateful of women"?  Consider that some might take the
>extreme view that "capitalism = survival of the fittest" and
>"patriarchy = protective of women".  This then could possible
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know what you mean by "protective".  For example, pre 1983, the
rape laws (now varing degrees of sexual assault) defined rape as
then penetration of the vagina with the male's penis.  If a
broken bottle was used, it was not considered rape.  The reason
the law was writen that way was to protect society from the
horrors of a woman having a baby out of wedlock.  Because a
woman without a husband to take care of her is not likely to
survive and would place an undue burden on the rest of society.
(I am, of course, stretching and twisting the reasoning here it 
to draw light to the egocentric view that a woman needs a man.)

But patriarchy is not always interpreted as protective of women.  
More often interpreted as male dominated society, with rules, points
of views, and conventions that favour the male sex and oppress
the female.  The interests of the society are protected often without
regard to the effect on women.

For example, the dual jurisdiction of violence against a spouse and
violence against stranger.  If a man commits a violent act
against a stranger, the case is handled in criminal court.  If
a man commits the same violent act to his wife, the case is
handled in civil courts.  Instead of the courts making sure
that the violent man is removed from society, they try to
reconcile the differences.  This law reflects the importance
that society places on the family.  Keep it together at all 
costs unfortunately at the expense of the victim... most often 
a woman.

Another example:  The "old boys" argument that women "ask for it"
when they get sexually assaulted.   This places the blame of men's
inability to control their hormones and violence on women.  It places 
the impetus for change on women not on men.  They beleive that women
should change by not dress sexily, instead of the men changing
by learning to control their hormones.  The root of the 
problem is men's aggressive uncontrollable sexuality.  Men's
flawed logic would have us change the women, to have women
accomodate men, instead of attacking the root of the problem
which lies with men.  Women have been accomodating men's needs
for hundreds of years.  Once again, women are blamed as the 
root of all evil.

Related to the notion of women as the root of all evil:  this
adds to the promotion of hatred of women.  Hatred of the 
feminine.  Women is seens as 'other', feminine is seens as
some sort of lesser state -- to be hated and oppressed.

>                                     This then could possible
>be translated into "lack of capitalism = female dominant" and
>"matriarchy = hateful of men".  Also, this could possibly be
>interpreted as "survival of the fittest = male dominant", thus
>leading to the conclusion that women cannot compete with men.
>Quite a leap of faith, there.  And quite a generalization.
>Which is what a lot of pseudo-Freudian interpretations seem
>to be.  Not that they're always wrong, just often humorous.
>

Thanks for pointing out these flaws in my analysis.

---Shane