fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3486 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3486 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Maya Rudolph & Martin Short]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Hamilton/South Park]

__________________________________________________

04.

[John Spencer]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Sliders]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Daniel Radcliffe]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Dune]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Assassin's Creed Syndicate]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Mulberry]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13. [tb]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #498.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's complicated. On the one hand, the mother also has fewer options, although at one point she mentions the workhouses, which, while not pleasant, would be a living. On the other hand, period movies tend to be tricky because they try to capture what life was like, while still viewing things through a modern lense, which is a fault in moviemaking for sure. (For example, we are supposed to sympathize with Rose because we understand she was trapped by her time period, while viliainizing the mother because of how she's viewed through modern feminism.)

On the other hand, now that I've typed all that, I just googled 'What did widowed women do in 1912' and it turns out it was perfectly acceptable for widowed women to work in domestic situations. Which brings me back to my original interpretation of the mother: It's not that they will starve without Cal, it's that they will no longer be wealthy, which makes the whole 'Sold my daughter into marriage thing' even creepier than they already will. Because of course, she also could have made a match for Rose, who was gorgeous, with just about any man, it didn't have to be a wealthy one. She actually did have more options than Rose.

I don't think that typical widowed women roles apply to people in Rose's mother's position. Having grown up wealthy she wouldn't have the skills necessary to be proper household help or anything, and at her age... I can completely sympathize with why she felt this was the only way out and her livelihood depended on Rose.

Also they had debts to pay - they were far into the negatives, not merely broke. They weren't wealthy - they were pretending to wealthy while being actually "debt-ridden." There was no way she'd have been able to pay that off in a workhouse at... she must have been around 60? years old.

But I agree, now that I'm thinking about it again so much later, I kind of hate that the movie viewed Rose in terms of her time and totally villainized her mom in terms of modern feminism like you said. WTF.

I actually forgot about the debts, and you have a definite point about her mother not having the necessary skills, which definitely changes things! I think in the end I still sympathize with Rose, especially because she's a teenager, but I also sympathize with her mother. I think they were both stuck, it's just that Rose found what she felt was her 'out.' And I sympathize a bit more with Rose because Cal was a violent jerk and she was willing to kill herself to get away from him.

We agree on the Cal part for sure, I don't sympathize with Cal at all. I *do* think he was a well-written character, believably typical for the times, and Zane acted him fantastically but definitely not a good guy. The part about responsibility where Rose reneged on the engagement was more about ditching her basically-dependant mother for teen infatuation to me.

So maybe I should amend my original statement to, if people are going to view the whole movie with a modern feminist lens, I don't mind people bashing Rose for the same things they bash everyone else for. If people are going to view the whole movie with a historic lens, then they should maybe bash everyone else a bit less.

I feel like if you view the whole thing through a modern feminist lens and ignore historical context, Rose looks a lot better, actually. But I'll be keeping history in mind on my next watch.

I'm not sure about that - modern feminism, depending on what version of it we're talking about, might say she could have left the debt and broken away from the family to work in a workhouse and be independent, like you mentioned. Without the historical context in mind, she never had to agree to the engagement or accept it happening. Hence the cheating part. It all kind of depends.

Yeah but even in modern times, modern feminism accepts that sometimes people cannot leave situations their parents or an abusive partner set out for them. Even if it took place in 2016, you still have the fact that her mother arranged this and Cal is a violent jerk.

I'm not arguing that Rose isn't a victim. I'm saying through a modern lens where women are expected to have more agency, she could be seen as more responsible instead of less. A modern woman would have been expected to say no to begin with.

I don't think "she knew he was an abuser and couldn't leave" really works as a rationale there. Cal didn't become abusive until halfway through the movie... IIRC after she had already decided to leave and told him she was 'cheating' on him in front of everyone else. So I wouldn't say "she couldn't leave the abuse" because it didn't get abusive until after she had decided to go and announced her plans.

This is not to say Cal wasn't abusive, I just don't think the situation you describe applies from the start.

I think it could definitely be seen either way.

I will concede on the abuse point, however.

[ SECRET POST #3486 ]

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread

Re: Another bashing thread