329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments [2016/11/17 07:46] – [3 Questions about interpretation] khaynes3 | 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments [2016/11/17 07:46] (current) – [6 The So, what? question] khaynes3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| I think the film got right Southern white womens’ place, subordinate to her husband. While I can definitely see the ‘90s intermingling with the plot, mainly the hint of feminism without being directly overt about it. However, I think Miriam’s fear of her husband was very real. Her husband served as the provider of her house and therefore she had to conform to him. She was supposed to be seen as pristine because she’s white and when they raid the carpool place, they equate her as black. | I think the film got right Southern white womens’ place, subordinate to her husband. While I can definitely see the ‘90s intermingling with the plot, mainly the hint of feminism without being directly overt about it. However, I think Miriam’s fear of her husband was very real. Her husband served as the provider of her house and therefore she had to conform to him. She was supposed to be seen as pristine because she’s white and when they raid the carpool place, they equate her as black. | ||
| --- // | --- // | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought it was interesting that they never showed MLK Jr. I suppose that was to focus on the story at hand and not be another piece of media focusing on MLK. I really liked Miriam finding her place in the struggle for race equality. Seeing the two women, dealing with the same social problem in two different aspects was good from a historical perspective because the story is less one-sided. | ||
329/question/329--week_12_questions_comments.1479368780.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/11/17 07:46 by khaynes3