Shelley-Trivializatoin & gender roles in movie

With all of these theories, debates and discussions, i find myself not being able to take a side. I agree with some parts and disagree with others...it's kind of frusturating !!!
I found this first chapter quite interesting though (it was easy for me to relate to-i actually knew what McKee was talking about). First topic: How much trash is in our media today. I have never been a fan of news. As i have found myself tuning into it now that i am older, i think to myself 'all the stuff that is on there is not news to me...i read it in people magazine while in line at the grocery store'. Now that i am getting somewhat interested in what is going on in this country, and in this world, i am unable to hear about the real issues. Instead, Paris Hilton's lost dog is the top news story of the hour. Now, i love gossip magazines, watching E!, and reading the tabloids---that is where i am supposed to find that kind of "news"....not on the channel seven ten o'clock news! When it comes to politics, i am completely ignorant to most of it( like Stephanie said..i am one of those people who could give you an update on Britney but can only name a few of the candidates running for president). This does not mean that i agree the news should be the source of my celebrity updates. When Mckee mentions Habermas' take on private issues, i have to agree (to some extent). I mean some issues do need to stay in the private sphere, but some things i like to be out there for the public. For example, when Bill Clinton's sex life was put out there for everyone to know about, i thought ' we don't need to know his business'. Now, i think that it is kind of okay to hear about politicians personal life. I mean, it does have an effect on how that person is going to run our country. The section regarding women and trivialization had me on the fence too. I agree that some women's issues and concerns (that are seen as trivial to some people) should be part of the public sphere-but not all women's issues and concerns. What about the trivial concerns men have???--- i don't want to hear all of them either. Some things need to be left for the slumber parties and locker rooms only.

As for the movie--i was in a Disney mood, so i watched Peter Pan. i found it so interesting how the different gender roles were portrayed. There are a lot of female characters in this movie: Wendy, Tinkerbell, Tigerlily, Nana, Mother, the mermaids, and a few women Indians. One characteristic i found in almost all of them was jealousy. Tink is jealous of Wendy, The mermaids are jelous of Wendy, Wendy is jealous of Tigerlily. They are all trying to get 'the guy'. I also found with the mermaids, Tink and Wendy that they are into their looks, Tink is even self- conscious about hers. The role of the women in London is that of a care taker. Nana, the dog, is even given a very stereotypical role--the nurse/maid/caretaker. In Neverland, when they are in the Indians neck of the woods, the female characters have an even more subordinate role. Tigerlily dosen't even talk, and an older Indain Woman tells Wendy something like "squaw no have fun, squaw get 'em firewood". The boys of this movie are given traditional male roles. They fight, want to mark their territory, and give orders. They are mischievous and like to hunt. The father is stern, Peter Pan and Captain Hook are leaders of their own little army (the pirates and the lost boys). The boys never want to grow up and the woman (wendy) is realistic. Even at the end, Peter Pan is the hero: he defeated Hook and makes the decision to take Wendy and her brothers back to London.