Userpics

[kmd]

Not to be too inward-focused and navel-gazy here, but will someone who posts to feminist and uses an icon that depicts violence against women or girls please tell me why? I believe that you (all) have reason(s), and I am genuinely interested to hear it/them.

Comments

[idealistagain]

I think its only fair, that if insinuations like this are going to be made, that you cite your source; ie, the specific post or icon that you think does this. I can't seem to find any such icons either; maybe I'm just missing them?

[betsytron5000]

maybe she's talking about the icon of the first commenter of this post??? i really don't know, either!

[mimicucumber]

I wondered too, and thought about replying, but decided to wait in case something a little more obvious came up.

I don't think I'm the person the OP is talking about, but FWIW, this is practically the only good image of the adorable Verruca Salt there is on a casual google image search. It's a scene from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where Verruca (the best character, IMO) is being utterly unbearable as usual and is, in the picture, being called out on some kind of asshattery.

[michaelsullivan]

I know it's just fiction, but that's actually child abuse being depicted. Veruca Salt isn't being "called out", she's being assaulted. Isn't this a big feminist issue? The way in which our culture casually condones child abuse that stops short of a beating in the name of discipline? And often to enforce gendered norms of behavior

[mrlzbth]

I realize this is getting away from the original question, but because Willy Wonka is one of my favorite movies I feel the need to jump in here. I just rewatched the scene to make sure, and I think describing what happens as "assault" is really too strong. Wonka says that the snozzberries on the lickable wallpaper taste like snozzberries, Veruca says (snottily, of course) that "Whoever heard of a snozzberry?" and turns to lick the wallpaper again. She has her tongue out, which is why her mouth is open when Wonka reaches out to turn her head back to him. At which point he says, "We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams." He immediately lets her go and they proceed with the tour.

You could argue that he shouldn't touch her at all, I suppose, but he certainly doesn't slap her, and calling it "child abuse" seems a bit extreme. I do see how the still in question could make it appear that she's been hit or is about to be hit--but it isn't the case in the film.

[haywagonsmom]

agreed

[kmd]

"We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams." He immediately lets her go and they proceed with the tour.

Which is even that much creepier to me. We are music makers and dreamers of dreams, and if you don't do what we tell you then we'll grab your face and MAKE you.

I've been grabbed like that, as a little girl. It didn't feel musical or dreamy.

[laughingimp]

Would it have found it less creepy if Willy Wonka had grabbed one of the boys like that, instead of Veruca?

[michaelsullivan]

At which point he says, "We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams." He immediately lets her go and they proceed with the tour.Right, and so because it's not a particularly horrible assault, we might not press charges, or try to take a child away from parents who did that sort of thing regularly, if they didn't do any worse

curious...

[0xmahliax0]

I haven't seen the movie for a few years - could you tell me if any of the other kids are grabbed in any way?

Re: curious...

[mrlzbth]

Hmm, I don't remember any instances off the top of my head. Wonka grabs Charlie by the arms at the end, but he's congratulating him on having won. Violet's father grabs her by the arm after she takes the gum and Mike's mother puts Mike in her purse after he shrinks, but Wonka generally just stands back and lets the children go to their own destruction without interfering. It's actually rather interesting that just two scenes after the lickable wallpaper scene he stands back and allows Veruca to completely destroy a room in his factory without doing anything to stop her...the Oompa Loompas try to grab her but unsuccessfully if I remember correctly.

I can't remember if Slugworth makes physical contact with any of the kids.

[sabonasi]

You don't find many men writing in the 60s and early 70s who don't share this paradigm of demeaning women (except for the sainted mother figure who can do no wrong).

I'm dubious about this. While not perfect, Isaac Asimov wrote many of the Dr. Susan Calvin stories even earlier than that, and there's no denying that Dr. Calvin is a feminist icon. Ironically, the movie version of I, Robot from just a few years back completely reduced Dr. Calvin to the role of attractive young love interest.

[dancing_moon]

*quietly joins in with some Dr. Calvin love*

[paperclipchains]

... Okay, but Veruca Salt is still a massively spoiled brat. There are also two male massively spoiled brats, I might remind you.

I feel you're really blowing things out of proportion.

[kmd]

WWatCF is intentionally dark, and spoiled children do not fare well in the Chocolate Factory. It is very much a modern day fairy tale and morality play in that respect.

But very much like the Brothers Grimm and Aesop and Disney, Dahl takes cultural archetypes and reinforces them and builds new imagery for them. Veruca Salt is a caricature of a cultural archetype of a spoiled girl/woman who needs a good slap or spanking, exactly like Scarlett O'Hara. Mike TV and Augustus Gloop are spoiled brats, too, but that doesn't make the character (caricature) of Veruca Salt (and WW's grabbing her face) any less sexist.

I feel you're really blowing things out of proportion.

?? Deconstructing fairy tales is classic feminist discourse.

[ladyvorkosigan]

Aww, I always thought of Scarlett O'Hara as a woman who was too smart and too capable for her time, who was often held down by people telling her what she ought to do but who rose above it in crisis. For all that there are many, many, many problems with the books, that always made me like her.