I think there's feminism in this play/movie. Rather than having suitors choosing her, she chooses her suitor. "I don't want to be worshiped, I want to be loved" is a very feminist line because not only does it equate her desire to be treated like an equal human being capable of respect and love, but also says "Don't put me on a pedestal, I'm only human."
share[deleted]
I very much agree. That's what I love about most of the Katharine Hepburn pictures I've seen up to date: They often depict the struggle for equality in a man-woman-relationship. I think the issue still holds much relevance even today. And considered the times in which these pictures were shot - quite progressive approach there!
shareI also agree.
"Oh Hoss,I paid two dollars for this," Joe Cartwright in The Bonnaza episode: The Gunmen.
[deleted]
Yep, I certainly think there is. Except with the examples you gave, Tracy seems to go from unattainable goddess to man's equal, which is sort of a step down. I think the film conveys contradicting messages. Tracy has obvious power over the men. She can control them, and it is she who gets to decide which one she wants to marry. But at the same time, by marrying Dexter she has stepped off of that pedestal and comes down to Earth, where men once again are the dominant sex in marriage. However, the contradicting message does not necessarily mean that women should be inferior to men by getting married, but rather highlights it. I think that by showing that Tracy is just as good a match to the men in intelligence and wit, she should be their equal-- but in the end, she isn't. And this highlights the feminist argument.
In a research/film analysis essay for one of my film classes I wrote about Katharine Hepburn and the contradicting messages that her films convey in feminism. She often portrayed a very strong, domineering, independent female character, from career woman Tess in 'Woman of the Year,' to Lady Cynthia Darrington in 'Christopher Strong' or Amanda in 'Adam's Rib.' But it always seems that in the end the women lose to the men. This is especially true in her films with Spencer Tracy. The way I see it, her characters may never solve the issue of the inferior status of women, but rather bring the issue to light.
Not that Kate was a feminist--in fact she explicitly stated that she wasn't--but she certainly embodied many aspects of a feminist and is nonetheless a role model for many women. Also, her choice in fashion off the set (specifically her insistence on wearing men's trousers when it was unacceptable to do so) and strong-minded personality certainly furthered her feminist image.
I personally think that the film reinforces traditional views of marriage and the relationship of men and women and in such a way is quite sexist.
I'll elaborate at some point but I'm pressed for time at the moment.
When did Katharine Hepburn say that she wasn't feminist? She did support the women's right to vote, she supported her mother's efforts to have birth control, and she never qualified herself as someone who fulfilled the feminine mystique of what a woman should be.
shareToo much feminism indeed,
http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/04/feminism-101.html
Many of Hepburn's movies followed the classical plot of the "comedy." From Shakespeare on, the comedy begins with an upset of the expected social order that gets corrected by the end. A good example is The Taming of the Shrew. A strong woman who dominates men is finally subjugated to a strong male, thus the social order is restored. This film is no exception. Tracy starts out preparing to marry a man who is much weaker than she is in mind and spirit, and ends up marrying a man strong enough to "tame" her. BUT, there is a little bit of a subversive streak in the end of the film, because Cary Grant's final speech is one that, to an extent, restores Tracy as the best of women. He all but promises to love, cherish, and honor her. He stops at "obey", but I think the audience is left with a feeling that he appreciates her strength, and will support this quality of hers within their marriage. I don't think this is a feminist ending by any means, but I do think we can feel their marriage, unlike their first, will be a marriage between equals.
sharethis is late but here goes:
"I think there's feminism in this play/movie. Rather than having suitors choosing her, she chooses her suitor."
That's just a byproduct of her beauty.
"I don't want to be worshiped, I want to be loved" is a very feminist line because not only does it equate her desire to be treated like an equal human being capable of respect and love, but also says "Don't put me on a pedestal, I'm only human.""
No it isn't a feminist line.
She doesn't want the pedestalization but she doesn't want equality either.
She wants them to see her as a human being, and to evaluate her accordingly.Once they remove their love-tinted glasses and treat her not as a goddess but as a human being, she is just a woman.And she wants to be treated as such.
As a man would treat a woman, not as a man would treat a goddess or another man.
"I don't want to be worshiped, I want to be loved"
She can't state it clearly, but to be worshipped by a man she worships is a huge turn-off.She wants to be loved.To be treated equally means friendship and not love.
Love is a phenomenon of projection just as hate is, not a phenomenon of equation as friendship is. The latter presupposes an equality of both individuals: love always implies inequality, disproportion. To endow an individual with all that one might be and yet never can be, to make her ideal - that is love. Beauty is the symbol of this act of worship. -Otto Weininger
The movie describes the differences and the conflict between the two aspects of love between a man and a woman.
A man raises the woman to a pedestal, idealises her, depending on her beauty.
However a woman's love is in seeing herself below the man she loves even though she might be her intellectual equal(though it's harder to have this delusion in case of equality).
Men articulate freely, she doesn't, she can't bring herself to tell them the truth(because she will negate her own delusions) and only hints at it.
The fact that she speaks of being "loved" and not loving herself, demonstrates the inherent inequality in her view of love.
"That's just a byproduct of her beauty."
Really, only beautiful people get to choose who is best for them?
"No it isn't a feminist line.
She doesn't want the pedestalization but she doesn't want equality either.
She wants them to see her as a human being, and to evaluate her accordingly.Once they remove their love-tinted glasses and treat her not as a goddess but as a human being, she is just a woman.And she wants to be treated as such.
As a man would treat a woman, not as a man would treat a goddess or another man."
She wants to be treated like a human being and not a Greek goddess Palatea that they accuse her of creating for herself when actually they are the ones who created it, seems the problem is the pedestalization and a woman wanting to be treated like a human being is completely feminist. By being treated like a human being, she can be evaluated accordingly, as an equal.
"She can't state it clearly, but to be worshipped by a man she worships is a huge turn-off.She wants to be loved.To be treated equally means friendship and not love. "
That isn't entirely true, I could love someone and treat them equally. Dexter can love Tracy and treat her equally.
"However a woman's love is in seeing herself below the man she loves even though she might be her intellectual equal(though it's harder to have this delusion in case of equality).
Men articulate freely, she doesn't, she can't bring herself to tell them the truth(because she will negate her own delusions) and only hints at it.
The fact that she speaks of being "loved" and not loving herself, demonstrates the inherent inequality in her view of love. "
Why is wanting intellectual if not social equality a delusion? Cannot a woman see herself as on the same par as the man she loves. To quote from another Katharine Hepburn movie "There is no more room for the 'little woman' in marriage today. The woman has to be at the same level as the man." I think that if she couldn't articulate freely she couldn't articulate at all. It is not Tracy who is delusioned here, she herself is a victim of society not accepting her social equality and putting her on the pedestal of perfection of expectation of gender role for which her character navigates through in order to love herself and be loved by others as herself, which is very very feminist.
I think if Katharine Hepburn ever meant she wasnt a feminist it was in the sense that she didnt spend much time actively advocating for womens rights...she may have also been comparing herself to her mother and other sufferagettes she would have known as a child, and felt she never made the sacrifices they did. In the sense of a woman living her own life on her own terms, not feeling she had to have children for fullfillment, being for the most part in control of her career and her life, she should be a feminist icon. Even when she subjucated herself to Spencer Tracy in their relationship she would have said it was her choice and she could walk away whenever she chose. People today dont realize how groundbreaking it was that she lived her life the way she did
It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices
"Really, only beautiful people get to choose who is best for them? "
Beggars aren't choosers.
"She wants to be treated like a human being and not a Greek goddess Palatea that they accuse her of creating for herself when actually they are the ones who created it, seems the problem is the pedestalization and a woman wanting to be treated like a human being is completely feminist. By being treated like a human being, she can be evaluated accordingly, as an equal. "
Being treated like a human being and being treated like a woman are equal only if men and women are equal. Which they are not; to be loved like a woman flies in the face of feminist dogma.
"That isn't entirely true, I could love someone and treat them equally. Dexter can love Tracy and treat her equally. "
There are supposedly different kind of loves, love between siblings, love between parent-child, but love as a couple essentially requires inequality. Man creates this inequality by artificially pedestalizing woman, woman creates this inequality by diminishing herself. The concept of goddess is required because physical reality is antithetical for the purpose.
As for your own example I would say that I am using a definition of love that a priori dismisses the claim of equality. In fact it is as absurd people claiming "different but equal" and then using it to show that equality exists.
Then there's the problem of equality in the act of sex itself.
"Why is wanting intellectual if not social equality a delusion?"
You probably misunderstood me here. Though you should check the educational credentials of couples. Then social equality for men and women is a totally different idea from social equality of man and woman.
"Cannot a woman see herself as on the same par as the man she loves."
As above, no.
" To quote from another Katharine Hepburn movie "There is no more room for the 'little woman' in marriage today. The woman has to be at the same level as the man.""
Marriage doesn't(or did not) entail love. And a quote without any logic whatsoever is pointless.
"I think that if she couldn't articulate freely she couldn't articulate at all."
Umm, what?
"It is not Tracy who is delusioned here, she herself is a victim of society not accepting her social equality and putting her on the pedestal of perfection of expectation of gender role for which her character navigates through in order to love herself and be loved by others as herself, which is very very feminist."
To claim society has something to do with it is a cop-out which is utterly pointless. "Society made me do this", "society said I can't do that", this washing off of hands from your own choices is dishonest.
People change themselves in order to be loved, so I don't follow where you are getting with this. And that was quite a mouthful of sentence . :)
To me this is in essence Kiss Me, Kate. She has to be humbled before she is fully woman. That's why a remake went over well in the mid 50s when women were being put back into the wife and mother roles in the harems we called the suburbs, sometimes very much against their will and requiring Valium, the most prescribed medicine of that decade.
shareIt contradicts the philosophical core of feminism which is the perpetual antagonism between men and women, Hepburn's character proves that when you're a rich woman, you can be as strong as any man, socially, economically, and it can allow you to act as a boss or a bully with any man in a lower position. If one thing, her character demonstrates that the real antagonism is not between men and women but between rich and poor, which has always been.
"Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather"