<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Topic - Repetitive Thesis
Review: After hearing the author talk on public radio, I was looking forward to new information and insights on how women are portrayed in tv, motion pictures, and literature. What Issacs states would be hard to argue, women ARE put into categories - strong vs. weak - or as she puts it, strong dames or wimpettes. However, I would argue that men are put in these categories, as well. It is a very quick read & does provide recommendations at the end concerning books, movies, and television programs that show strong women, not 'wimpettes'. I would suggest any parent or concerned other who feels women and girls are portrayed offensively read Issacs essay for a primer but actually write to the 'powers that be' that are in charge of network decisions,the movie makers, and, finally, the writers that put the 'pictures' in our minds of what a strong women really means.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting subject, but a disappointing read.
Review: I have to admitt that it was the title of the book that caught my attention. I was excited to finally find a critique of modern women and the wimpy, unaccountable, excuse-making attitudes many television personalities inflict upon the viewers. My first disappointment was that the book focuses mainly on fictional TV characters, not real people. What is the point of criticising a fictional personality if it is the actress' job to portray her that way? The author missed out on the major wimpette of our time - Oprah Winfrey. While I don't mean to pick on Oprah, I want to point out that there are plently of true cases the author could have used in her book.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting subject, but a disappointing read.
Review: I have to admitt that it was the title of the book that caught my attention. I was excited to finally find a critique of modern women and the wimpy, unaccountable, excuse-making attitudes many television personalities inflict upon the viewers. My first disappointment was that the book focuses mainly on fictional TV characters, not real people. What is the point of criticising a fictional personality if it is the actress' job to portray her that way? The author missed out on the major wimpette of our time - Oprah Winfrey. While I don't mean to pick on Oprah, I want to point out that there are plently of true cases the author could have used in her book.
Rating: 
Summary: Not at all what I expected
Review: I picked up this book hoping to gain some insight into the role of women and the characters that they play in books,television, and movies. I consider myself a feminist and I find most books in the Women's Studies sections of bookstores fairly interesting. I did not expect an optimistic viewpoint and Isaacs did not fail in this respect. What I found so annoying and disappointing in this book was Isaacs' insistence in defining what makes a woman a positive role model and what makes her a negative role model. By the end of the book, one begins to feel, (or at least I did as a woman) that any hint of weakness in a woman spells her downfall. For Isaacs, the ingredients that make up a brave dame are no easy feat and I beg to differ with her on several counts. By creating all of these rules for becoming a brave dame, Isaacs undermines what I would argue was her intent - to show that brave dames do exist.
Rating:
Summary: catchy title but lacks delivery.
Review: I really disliked this book. While it is an essay based on someone's opinion,the argument was not substantiated with any sort of academic knowledge as to the psychology of the female mind or to world of filmmaking past the writing process. The author's definition of what makes a "Great Dame" in contrast to a "Wimpette" is so narrowly construed that rather than feeling empowered by the "Great Dames" the reader is left outraged by who is considered a wimpette. Susan Isaacs argues that Anita Hill is a wimpette because she should either "(1) report him [Clarence Thomas] for sexual harassment through established procedures or (2) tell him to shut the hell up." Isaacs does not consider that sexual harassment, especially repeated sexual harassment is psychologically damaging to a person. Sexual harassment often preys on a person's inferior position and makes him or her afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule. Also, the author fails to point out that filmmaking remains a male-dominated field. No woman has ever won an Academy Award for Directing or Cinematography. Until women gain an equal voice in the media, the majority of films will continue to have characters that Isaacs deems "wimpettes."
Rating:
Summary: catchy title but lacks delivery.
Review: I really disliked this book. While it is an essay based on someone's opinion,the argument was not substantiated with any sort of academic knowledge as to the psychology of the female mind or to world of filmmaking past the writing process. The author's definition of what makes a "Great Dame" in contrast to a "Wimpette" is so narrowly construed that rather than feeling empowered by the "Great Dames" the reader is left outraged by who is considered a wimpette. Susan Isaacs argues that Anita Hill is a wimpette because she should either "(1) report him [Clarence Thomas] for sexual harassment through established procedures or (2) tell him to shut the hell up." Isaacs does not consider that sexual harassment, especially repeated sexual harassment is psychologically damaging to a person. Sexual harassment often preys on a person's inferior position and makes him or her afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule. Also, the author fails to point out that filmmaking remains a male-dominated field. No woman has ever won an Academy Award for Directing or Cinematography. Until women gain an equal voice in the media, the majority of films will continue to have characters that Isaacs deems "wimpettes."
Rating: 
Summary: Instead of reading this book, read Molly Haskells
Review: I work in publishing and so have the nasty habit of reading the acknowledgement section first. I was initially put off by the fact that Ms. Isaacs thanks another person for doing the research. Then I read that this book came out of an article that was written in 1990. That it does, shows. While there are some references to current shows like lamo Ally McBeel, there are also a lot of tired references to shows like Hope & Gloria (anyone remember that one or it's impact?)And please, aren't we all a little tired of Thelma & Louise references? Anyway, being a woman, and a woman who loves film, any kind of film and literature, I was very disappointed with this book. I thought it was on about the same level as a college essay, not something that belongs in the Library of Contemporary Thought. It's too "listy" and doesn't give enough arguement or meat--breaking everyone down into wimpettes and near wimpettes or whatever. While I do agree that there aren't many good roles for women these days, I also disagree with many of Isaacs assertions and feel that she missed a lot of good movies. For instance, Joy Luck Club, a facinating movie about women, mothers and daughters, overcoming societies rules and roles, and self-worth is dismissed in one sentence because showing women cooking is supposed to be bad in movies beause it shows us in traditional roles. Huh?
<< 1 >>
|
