>Doug wrote:
>
>>That's just the point. They represent girl power
>as the
>>Thatcher-sympathizing assumption of cliched babe
>roles scripted by others.
>>What's feminist about that?
>>
>>Doug
>>
>
>But, but Doug. I thought you recognized at least
>*some* progressive potential in identity politics
>a la Judith Butler. I mean I recall you saying,
>after you read her latest, that you could see some
>good points but that, in the end, she just seemed
>to refuse to elaborate a way to, paraphrasing,
>"put one foot in front of the other" so to speak.
>So, could we see some *potential* for undermining
>those stereotypes precisely by playing them to the
>hilt with a kind of in-yer-face Thatcherite Babe
>Persona designed to get folks to challenge their
>assumptions about what it means to be a woman? Or
>somesuch. Anyway, Paul, the eight year old boys
>like the Spice Girls, too. At least, my son and
>his friends did when they were eight. Now,
>they're 11, so fagedaboudit!! (Is that how you
>spell it, NY style?) And, more to the point, as I
>recall they had some pretty radical understandings
>about women and grrRl power at the time.
>Something about how girls were tougher than boys,
>or at least one of the Spice Girls looked tougher.
>The conversation also went into the idea that
>girls were smarter than boys too. Hmmmm.
>
>SnitgrrRl
Yeah, but aren't the Spice Girls, like the Donnas, put together by some man or other? Who writes their material? (There's always some impurity.)
I hear we have some Spice Babies on the way. It is a Spice World, and it has me scared.
-Alec
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com