just talk about 1972

The general direction of the 1972 article is succinct and clear, that is, it has been suppressing the minority and voiceless groups than myself: feminism (equal rights between men and women) → lesbian groups → masculine butch (that is, T).

There are two main lines: 1. Does the pursuit of equal rights between men and women have nothing to do with the Lazis? The Lazis are also "women" of feminism, so why are they forced to be excluded from the association? This problem should not be a problem now, but it is still possible in recent years. From the gay movement, we can see that we should be "clean", that is, to exclude AIDS, drug use, public prostitution, open relationships, and the participation of other minority issue groups, and become a "purely gay" group. The feminist groups in the play are afraid that the participation of the pullers will affect the social perception, and the school will take the initiative to intervene, so they actively kick them out. (This was not resolved at the end of the play, everyone broke up unhappily, probably as a guide line) 2. Why did T's dress and even his words and actions make people so uneasy, even with malicious attacks and mockery?

Copy the image of patriarchy. You know how hard it was for us to get out of there, why go back?

This is the explanation in the play, and Linda's rebuttal is that Amy knows what she's doing, and she doesn't need someone else to define her. But the fact is that Linda herself had doubts, and immediately asked Amy the next day after she went to bed, "So I'm a woman, are you a man?" "You haven't tried (wearing women's clothes), how do you know... .” (Well, no wonder there is no breakfast), these general public passers-by who are unfamiliar with relatives and friends may blurt out questions in front of you, do you think the second one is particularly familiar? ex: “You haven’t tried (with Heterosexual intercourse), how do you know" "You haven't tried (having sex with the opposite sex), how do you know".

Let's clarify Amy first. (1). She is not transgender, she clearly knows that she is a psycho woman. (2). Her appearance is like this, and no one can change it. Regarding this, to put it simply, rather than copying patriarchy, I prefer that we can use this to break the boundaries between our images of men and women, that is, "girls should look like girls" (perhaps we should ask: girls What is it like?), on the outside you can wear trousers, a suit, and short hair; on the inside you can be tough, brave, and independent; you can attack and defend in bed, but it doesn’t mean that all (society thinks) men should have You have all the traits on your back, you can also be gentle and considerate, you are yourself, you are still a girl, but you will not be the "girllike" that everyone helps you set in. Taking a 10,000 step back, even if we copy patriarchy and become tomboys, the image of this handsome girl has a mysterious atmosphere and a market, and there are girls who are attracted to it, and this kind of quality is something that men can't imitate. .

Finally, I have to confess Michelle Williams and Chloë Sevigny. I watched "Don't Cry Boys" first, and I can't imagine the straight girl (bent) who loves without hesitation. In "Love For You 2", she can turn into a beautiful blond boy. In addition to the credit for modeling, her acting skills are also fascinating. The play will have no sense of inconsistency. Michelle Williams watched "Blue Valentine's Day" and "Monroe and My Romance Weekly" and began to pay attention. She played Lazi naturally without pretense, with sparks with Chloë Sevigny, brown curly hair and a slightly rounded face figure, This state is also good.