Now THAT would be an epic movie.

The problem occurs when you aggregate all the instances of fridge-stuffing in a certain medium. The Nolans’ choice to kill of Rachel Dawes isn’t necessarily misogynistic on its own. It’s only when you realize that this kind of thing happens in basically every superhero movie or comic ever, and it general happens to women, that it gets creepy.

A commenter suggested the same thing was happening to the minority characters on Lost. At first I didn’t believe it, but now from my place in the middle of the third season, I’m starting to think it might be true. The cast is certainly getting whiter as the episodes progress.

I can understand you disliking how Rachel died. She’s the one female character, and she gets taken out just to give the men something to get all riled up about. BUT… it works. I mean, The Dark Knight is a great movie. So yes, her death is kind of a cliche, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be effective, good storytelling. Right? Go ahead and let me have it if you must.

And yes, _Children of Men_ is an awesome movie. Those long, one-shot sequences make me react physically in a way they wouldn’t have, had they been done with multiple cameras and cuts, for one thing.

@Mlawski: ::salute::

Oh, and I think Rachel deserves a good long rant about how awesome she was and how sucky that fridge-stuffing of her made me feel. Maybe I’ll play with that on my own blog in my oooooooodles of spare time. I did like how she even kept turning down her D.A. boss in _Batman Begins_, too, which gets rid of any theories about boss-humping to have her position as assistant D.A.

And thanks, Gab, for picking up the feminist mantle. Sometimes I just feel like ringing the bell and moving on. For the record, though, I like Mary Jane, Rachel Dawes, and Pepper Potts. Hell, I’ll even throw Lois Lane in there. They may be damsels in distress, they may be stuffed in fridges, but at least they have moxie. And that’s something.

It’s a related issue to the “slut” question. No, I don’t believe she’s a slut, although she literally runs away from her own wedding, which might make her an inconsiderate asshole. However, she IS defined entirely in relation to the men in her life. On the other hand, the movie is called “Spider-Man,” not “MJ Takes On NY.” Her character’s hopes and dreams are important only insofar as they impact Peter Parker.

Personally, I think Rachel Dawes, Batman’s special lady friend, is a stronger character, by at least a little bit. Sure, she’s ALSO largely defined by the men in her life, but she’s also a D.A. She has a role in the story beyond looking cute. Not to mention, she has strong feelings about the sanity of the whole Batman thing. She’s NOT going to pull down his mask for a quick makeout session.

And if any of you haven’t seen Children of Men, you just have to. I’m generally not a person who insists that people watch certain movies. But Children of Men is just jaw-dropping. Everytime it’s on TV, I can just kiss the next two hours goodbye.

Bed time, before I piss more people off…

Then I remembered Mlawski’s article about “douche” and saw Fenzel’s comment, and I think he answered for me. “…women who have sex with lots of men are sluts, but men who don’t have sex with lots of women are weak.” That’s how American society treats sex. There isn’t a male equivalent because men are *supposed* to have sex all the time and with as many women as possible. Duh, Gab.

Of course, there *is* still the fact that a woman that doesn’t sleep with a guy on a first date is a “prude” or a “cock-tease” or something- and I can’t come up with male versions of those, so either way, women are going to lose.

As for MJ specifically, I think she’s an example of a fictional woman that can’t exist outside her relationships with males. Not that she’s a “slut,” so much as she just has a constant, perpetual need to be “protected” and “saved.” She goes from her father to Flash, who can protect her physically, to Harry and his financial security, and then Peter because he’s, well, Spider-Man, for f***’s sake (I’m not even counting the times where he does, indeed, come to her rescue, either). PETER-Peter was offering emotional stability, but I got the impression from the movies that she wasn’t *really* serious about him until after finding out he has two identities.

And I take issue with her either just being “all-American” or “slut.” Perhaps on an individual level, we can see how a man operating like her (in terms of fidelity, i.e. flirting or switching) would be just as immoral as she is interpreted as, but, basically, because of the standards Fenzel pointed out in what I quoted, a man can be “all-American” while still getting around a lot (and he’d be called a “ladies’ man” or something equally praise-giving) (and I’d also argue that this is almost part of the criteria- maybe not so explicitly as other aspects, but definitely more common than not). In order for a woman to be all-American, she must also be hopelessly devoted to ONE all-American man and wait for him to come home with dinner on the table, a scotch in one hand, his slippers in the other, and an apron around her waist, to boot- and God forbid *she* flirt with a man she runs into, or, gasp, date more than one man at the same time.

Just throwing that out there, since Mlwaski can only do so much on her own as the official “token female.” Not to say I don’t think you can hold your own, Shana…

Brevity, I laugh at thee.