Image Map

On Our Radar

Another week, another bunch of thought-provoking articles. Here's some of what we've been reading:

Your turn to share!

Bitch Media publishes the award-winning quarterly magazine, Bitch:Feminist Response to Pop Culture. Pitch in to support feminist media: Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

5 comments have been made. Post a comment.

I like those movie posters. .

I like those movie posters. . . .

fatherhood article

LOVED the Jessica Valenti article on fatherhood!

I am glad to see people

I am glad to see people standing up for Julie Taymor, because she is one of my favorite directors. Also, I wonder if it might be worth turning Spider-man: Turn Off the Dark into an animated feature, because while I don't really have the means to take in a Broadway show, I love superheroes.

Thanks!

Hey! Thanks soooo much for the link mention! So glad others liked the piece by 90's Woman :))

I was under the impression

I was under the impression that the person who wrote about the 40 Greatest Movie Posters was being snarky himself. And sarcastic. I'm almost positive that the writer didn't *literally* mean that the Rosemary's Baby movie poster would help with contraception sales. I think he was trying to be funny, considering the content of the movie, with you know, Rosemary's baby being the anti-christ and all.

Articles like this make me scratch my head and go "Really?" I honestly don't find anything wrong or problematic with those posters, considering the way movie posters are made, they are meant to be teasers, use cropping and close-ups, and based on the content of the actual movie itself. I don't understand the hoopla about this "dismemberment" or obscured argument. There are movie posters featuring men who are "dismembered" or obscured. And if the only definition of "dismembered" is showing a close-up then I'd argue that it's a fairly poor argument. Look at the poster of the Indiana Jones movie. Every single character is shown with just their face, except Harrison Ford, and even he isn't show in entirety. So what on earth is the author trying to say? And judging by her commentary on Hard Candy, I take it she hasn't seen the movie. It's about a 14-year-old girl who suspects a man she is talking with on the internet is a pedophile, so she meets him, goes to his apartment with the plan to torture him and force him to admit he's a pedophile and has killed other girls before. That's right.... she intentionally put herself in that situation.