Is a Globe critic a member of the She-Woman Man Hater's Club?
By adamg - 10/22/08 - 11:19 am
Thomas Garvey criticizes Globie Louise Kennedy's criticism of the Lyric Stage's production of David Mamet's November. He wonders why she seems to be appalled at humor at the expense of lesbians, but thinks humor at the expense of a Native American man is OK. Garvey says it's the latest example of:
... [T]he reverse-sexist slant of Boston's leading print critics, all of whom are women ...
Comments
His own review says there
His own review says there are offensive jokes in the play.
Suum quique - my offense is not your offense.
oh, come on...she makes her argument.
"In the company of three men who are laughable because of their character traits - greed, cynicism, whatever - we get a woman who's laughable because - well, let's see. Because she's a woman, because she "bought" a baby, and because she's a lesbian. Sorry, not funny.
"And I do mean not funny. Not just "offensive to women, adoptive parents, and lesbians," but also "unsuccessful as a humorous device." "
Um, how much more does she need to do to EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO SAY? She gives it a couple more paragraphs and makes quite a convincing argument. I wish Garvey would supply any kind of counter-argument, which he does neither in his post nor in his original review. Kennedy could be completely off the mark. I am still pissed that I skipped the original production of Oleanna based what turned out to be a mind-numbingly reductive Globe review. So give us a damn counter-argument if we need to know the truth.
Counter-Argument
As given by Garvey: "... no one at the performance I attended laughed at her because she was a woman..."
Now, humor is always subjective. And saying that you can somehow divine why someone else may be laughing is seriously risky territory. That is the counter-argument, though, isn't it?
She implies that the audience laughed at the character because of certain traits, and that Mamet included the character to get laughs specifically from those traits. He states categorically that the audience did not laugh at the character because of those traits - implying, possibly, that they laughed for other reasons - and that Mamet included the character as counterpoint, the straight man to the other character's clowns.
Sounds like as reasoned a counter-argument as her original argument was, which is to say that both of them appear, to me, to be conjecturing and supposing.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Uh - how exactly does she "make her argument"?
I'm puzzled by your comment. You say Kennedy "makes her argument" - but what you mean is that she STATES her argument. Yes, Kennedy EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO SAY, as you put it, but she never quotes a joke or pratfall that revolves around the Bernstein character's lesbianism, or womanhood. And she can't, because they're really aren't any. As I stated in my review, there's a jibe about Bernstein "buying" her baby, but the line is clearly half-ironic, and intended to reflect poorly on the guy who says it, and many in the audience groaned at it (and Kennedy and I were at the same show). What's funny about Kennedy's comments on "November" is that she seems to willfully misunderstand the Bernstein character - who is obviously the 'straight man,' as it were, the foil for all the craziness around her, whose desires we are expected to sympathize with and perceive as reasonable. My feeling is that Kennedy's general dislike for Mamet caused her to willfully misread the role, and the play.
People still read the Globe?
People still read the Globe?
Definitions- ur doin it wrong
sexism
noun
discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex
SO REVERSE-SEXISM DOES NOT EXIST. Thank you, and goodnight.
The literal definition
The literal definition doesn't work in this instance. It's the cultural or societal definition.
When one uses 'sexism', it is almost always referring to discriminitory or abusive behavior directed one way - towards females. So, if you work it from the other end of the spectrum, 'reverse-sexism' would refer to discriminitory or abusive behavior directed towards men.
The opposite cultural definition has to exist in some form or fashion simply because the original word or definition has been co-opted to refer only to these situations from one direction only. And even if the actual term doesn't exist in Merriam-Webster's, does that negate the existence of that behavior? I think not.
Thanks . . .
. . . for explaining "reverse sexism."