Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 5:18:22 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2021 14:53:45 GMT -4
Once again, this supports my thesis that the 90s were marinated in misogyny although it didn't feel that way at that time. I was a feminist at that time, fresh out of college and women's studies classes, but I also have argued that both sides need to have their say (without understanding how institutionalized sexism and racism were at work here). It's so true, and I think we only now have the necessary distance to see the time for what it was. I'm working on a project that analyzes 80s and 90s pop culture and the messages aimed at women (young women and girls in particular), and the subtext of even what we saw as female empowering work is frankly shocking. My colleague describes misogyny as the toxic soup in which we swim as slowly boiling frogs. As we start to climb out of the soup, we can be amazed that we stayed in it so long, and that we never realized that this was our environment in the first place. A LOT of people want to keep us in the soup. Woody's like an old master chef whose cuisine we've lost the taste for once we realized what's in it, and how poisonous it is to all of us.
|
|
|
Post by prisma on Mar 17, 2021 15:07:29 GMT -4
What Moses Farrow said is that there were other small, electric train sets in the house, but they were never in the crawlspace, they were in the boys' rooms. I am on episode 4 and they showed detective's sketch of the attic and it included a train set--it was circular. It was too small to have been one of those big plastic things. I may be wrong, but that popped in my head from my viewing last night.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 17, 2021 15:31:43 GMT -4
The sketch had it about this size.Bear in mind, the documentarians say the kids wouldn't have been able to play with the sit-upon type train in the crawl space. True, but that's misleading. Woody Allen's side has always said the crawl space was for storage only and not suitable for any type of play, which is another one of the reasons why an electric train set would not have been assembled up there, if there even was an electrical outlet. (Mia still lives there, the documentarians could have checked that out.) I don't know the truth about the train, but all of this should have been put up onscreen for the audience to judge. Anyway, I'm even more disappointed by the documentarian's treatment of Moses. All of the arguments they use against him are standard abuse-denial arguments: Moses didn't report it to his pediatrician, Mia's friends don't think she was that type of mother, etc. Never mind that most of his abuse accusations were not in the form of bruises to show to a pediatrician, but psychological intimidation and humiliation. The filmmakers waited until their documentary was complete in December before putting a limited-time offer out to comment to "the other side", which included Woody and Moses. (The "ambush" technique the filmmakers bragged about in their previous documentary.) Both declined as they could see that the filmmakers had no serious intention of incorporating their stories into the documentary in any real way, which is why it's really offensive for the documentarians to claim that they did so much research to thoroughly Moses's abuse allegations. How can you claim you disproved an abuse allegation when you never even asked the alleged abuse victim what his allegations ARE? It's incredibly hypocritical coming from people who claim to be advocates of abuse victims.
|
|