In February 1991, The New York Times gave a glowing review to "Thelma & Louise." The Times said "T&L" "reimagines the buddy film with such freshness and vigor that the genre seems positively new."
The movie follows two women on a road trip that goes horribly wrong. One is raped. The other shoots and kills the rapist and suddenly, the two buddies become two killers on the run. They leave in their wake a perturbed and clueless boyfriend (Louise's) and husband (Thelma's), and a growing cadre of police — only one of whom is empathetic.
And then they drive off a cliff. What else are you going to do with rogue women?
Not every analysis of the movie was positive. More than a few reviewers worried "T&L" would open a Pandora's box of movies about angry women who can — and will — shoot back. No such hand-wringing greeted another popular movie that year, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." Not to worry, fellas. A new genre was not forthcoming. For the most part, Hollywood kept its women corseted and cosseted.
That fear — that women left unbound will hurt themselves and others — is a tired theme, and that's not just in Hollywood. This legislative session, we have a large and dedicated group of elected officials who want very much to hold women by the hand and walk us through the difficult stuff.
We are faced again — or maybe the proper word is "still" — with anti-abortion legislation that threatens to destroy our uneasy reproductive rights compromises that were years in the making. In Washington, there is the immensely troubling No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. For a while, House Republicans who love this bill included a controversial provision that limited coverage to "forcible rape," as if there were any other kind. Responding to public complaints, legislators backed away but there's still plenty about that bill that pushes us backward. The discussion, said Susan Yolen, of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, has been infuriating.
At his first-ever Washington press conference last week, Connecticut's Sen. Richard Blumenthal said this most recent attempt at restricting abortions "creates a reprehensible risk to the health of countless women across the country." He said he came out swinging early on this hot-button issue because even though the debate doesn't get much traction in Connecticut, a change in federal law would affect his constituents. It's not that we're all in agreement in the Nutmeg State, but more that the bulk of us understand that in this realm, it's better to err on the side of trusting women to make their own, right decision.
Yet Connecticut legislators face some anti-choice bills this session. My least favorite is a bill that requires a woman to have an ultrasound before she decides to terminate her pregnancy — a medical procedure that is standard already, Yolen says. The bill says nothing about having the woman actually look at the results of that ultrasound, but as we've all most likely seen pictures of fetuses in health class already, consider this nothing more than an intimidation tactic. It's certainly been used elsewhere, says Jillian Gilchrest, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice CT.
Yolen says some women seeking abortions ask to see their ultrasound but — and this is key —- that is their choice. Unless a legislator is a medical doctor, I prefer they not micromanage my health care.
And here's irony: Some of the people most interested in crawling inside so many women's lives would be loathe to embrace more government in their own. Yet, they suggest the government step in and make this most personal decision for women.
I have no hope of changing any one's mind with this. If you've read this far and you believe differently, you might right now hate my insides, but I will leave you with this, a quote from George Tiller, the doctor who performed abortions in Kansas until a gunman shot him dead in his church in 2009: "Trust women.''
Oh, and this, straight from Thelma's friend, Louise: "Where do those legislators get off behavin' like that with women they don't even know?''
Courant staff writer and columnist Susan Campbell can be reached at scampbell@courant.com.
The movie follows two women on a road trip that goes horribly wrong. One is raped. The other shoots and kills the rapist and suddenly, the two buddies become two killers on the run. They leave in their wake a perturbed and clueless boyfriend (Louise's) and husband (Thelma's), and a growing cadre of police — only one of whom is empathetic.
And then they drive off a cliff. What else are you going to do with rogue women?
Not every analysis of the movie was positive. More than a few reviewers worried "T&L" would open a Pandora's box of movies about angry women who can — and will — shoot back. No such hand-wringing greeted another popular movie that year, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." Not to worry, fellas. A new genre was not forthcoming. For the most part, Hollywood kept its women corseted and cosseted.
That fear — that women left unbound will hurt themselves and others — is a tired theme, and that's not just in Hollywood. This legislative session, we have a large and dedicated group of elected officials who want very much to hold women by the hand and walk us through the difficult stuff.
We are faced again — or maybe the proper word is "still" — with anti-abortion legislation that threatens to destroy our uneasy reproductive rights compromises that were years in the making. In Washington, there is the immensely troubling No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. For a while, House Republicans who love this bill included a controversial provision that limited coverage to "forcible rape," as if there were any other kind. Responding to public complaints, legislators backed away but there's still plenty about that bill that pushes us backward. The discussion, said Susan Yolen, of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, has been infuriating.
At his first-ever Washington press conference last week, Connecticut's Sen. Richard Blumenthal said this most recent attempt at restricting abortions "creates a reprehensible risk to the health of countless women across the country." He said he came out swinging early on this hot-button issue because even though the debate doesn't get much traction in Connecticut, a change in federal law would affect his constituents. It's not that we're all in agreement in the Nutmeg State, but more that the bulk of us understand that in this realm, it's better to err on the side of trusting women to make their own, right decision.
Yet Connecticut legislators face some anti-choice bills this session. My least favorite is a bill that requires a woman to have an ultrasound before she decides to terminate her pregnancy — a medical procedure that is standard already, Yolen says. The bill says nothing about having the woman actually look at the results of that ultrasound, but as we've all most likely seen pictures of fetuses in health class already, consider this nothing more than an intimidation tactic. It's certainly been used elsewhere, says Jillian Gilchrest, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice CT.
Yolen says some women seeking abortions ask to see their ultrasound but — and this is key —- that is their choice. Unless a legislator is a medical doctor, I prefer they not micromanage my health care.
And here's irony: Some of the people most interested in crawling inside so many women's lives would be loathe to embrace more government in their own. Yet, they suggest the government step in and make this most personal decision for women.
I have no hope of changing any one's mind with this. If you've read this far and you believe differently, you might right now hate my insides, but I will leave you with this, a quote from George Tiller, the doctor who performed abortions in Kansas until a gunman shot him dead in his church in 2009: "Trust women.''
Oh, and this, straight from Thelma's friend, Louise: "Where do those legislators get off behavin' like that with women they don't even know?''
Courant staff writer and columnist Susan Campbell can be reached at scampbell@courant.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment