From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 16:39:11 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Come On
Message-ID: <9407200106.AA07980@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



   The fact that the original moron trivialized the women's roles
in this film as "all they can do is talk on the phone, get
into cat fights, give blow jobs, and kill people by accident"
says more about his attitudes towards women than the response
that followed. It would be like saying "all the men do is drive around
in harrier jets,  deliver stupid one liners, and kill people"

   The fact is, not a single "blow job" was delivered in this movie.
"Cat fight" is a derogatory term for what happened (would you
call what happened in Total Recall with Sharone Stone a "cat fight"?
How many cat fights involve no hair pulling, and punches and kicks
to the face?")  And the "talk on the phone" bit takes up probably 5 minutes
of screen time.

   He also trivialized Juno Skinner's role (she is a villainness), because
she was greedy and did it all for profit.   Well what villain doesn't?
How many hundreds of movies have portrayed the evil Corporate CEO 
out to destroy the world for profit? Is it only when a woman is
potrayed doing it that it becomes taboo? If I was a woman, I'd be
more concerned about this attitude than guys lusting after Jamie
Lee Curtis's body.  What it says is this: Selfish Ambitious
Man = Up and Coming Ruthless Businessman.  Selfish Ambitious Woman = 
gold digging bitch.

   It is arguably  more damaging to women's business success than
"I like Hooters".

   Anyway, I'm surprised that there isn't a feminist witch-hunt
investigating Samdy Sandfort, for his non-pc H.E.A.T. reports.

   As for the crypto-related aspects. The movie did more to show
the *abuses* of wiretaps rather than how great they are at
stopping nuclear terrorists.