Yes. I think it was more of a question about how men find these child/women so appealing- (obviously not all men, but a good number, as shown by the film fantasy of these women) than a comment on the women themselves.
I think her greater point about these women in art is interesting- are these muses interesting to the artist simply BECAUSE they are so vague? And the artist can imprint whatever of himself that he wants to onto them?
What's interesting to me is how similar my response is to yours- although I don't think my dislike of the 'amazing girl' phenomenon is as vitriolic as the author's- but it does seem that the "Rosalind Russell" and the "Annie Hall" girls are diametrically opposed from one another. :D
I will disagree with Liz on this- I don't think that feminism means that we can't judge other women, although I do think she's right that sweeping generalizations are not necessarily a good thing.
no subject
I think her greater point about these women in art is interesting- are these muses interesting to the artist simply BECAUSE they are so vague? And the artist can imprint whatever of himself that he wants to onto them?
What's interesting to me is how similar my response is to yours- although I don't think my dislike of the 'amazing girl' phenomenon is as vitriolic as the author's- but it does seem that the "Rosalind Russell" and the "Annie Hall" girls are diametrically opposed from one another. :D
I will disagree with Liz on this- I don't think that feminism means that we can't judge other women, although I do think she's right that sweeping generalizations are not necessarily a good thing.