MovieChat Forums > Baby Boom (1987) Discussion > Is this film anti-femenist?

Is this film anti-femenist?

posted 17 years ago by petekrug17
45 replies | jump to latest

While this film is funny and certainly charming, it's plot boils down to this: J.C. is a woman who chose to pursue a career and NOT have a family. But then she has the job of caring for a baby girl forced on her. She makes the mistake of signing a contract without reading it, then frantically tries to talk the British woman out of making her take Elizabeth, but has the kid dumped on her anyway. Now I thought one of the themes of femenizem was that a woman should be allowed to decide what kind of life she wants, and that she shouldn't be made to feel like she has to have and raise children. Yet that's kind of what happens here.

[–] mixedmed 14 years ago

Now I thought one of the themes of femenizem was that a woman should be allowed to decide what kind of life she wants, and that she shouldn't be made to feel like she has to have and raise children. Yet that's kind of what happens here.

Not really. JC might have inherited Elizabeth, but she was free to give her up for adoption. No one guilted her into keeping Elizabeth, in fact her boyfriend, boss, and co-workers were expecting her NOT to keep her so things could go back to normal. JC could have handed the baby off to that couple from Duluth and kept on stepping. The only thing that prevented her from doing so was JC's own internal misgivings that stemmed from the fact that she had bonded with Elizabeth.

I've always understood femenism to mean that women should be able to choose to

1. Have a career without a family
2. Have a career and a family
3. Have a family and no career

Or any other such combination. In other words, women should have the freedom to choose what life they want. And in the end, that's what JC did, she chose the life she wanted.

[–] ariamne 13 years ago

The majority of women WANT children, working women too. Feminism has failed women, first in the 60's and 70's when we were told children were a burden and an impediment to our success and that abortion was preferable, then more so than in the 80's, when we were bombarded with this notion that we could "have it all" and not lose a thing. One of the pithy ideas that came from feminism was "quality time" vs. "quantity time". That is a crock, children don't differentiate between the two. I never thought I wanted children but when I became pregnant for the first time at 37, we were thrilled. I thought I would take a few weeks, put my baby in day care and go back to work. But once my daughter was born I could not do it. Luckily for me,though not rich, I was married to a lawyer and could stay home for the first three years. Then he took over since he had his own business. The point is, professional feminists (like NOW, which I used to belong to in the 70's, but quit, disgusted by the anti-man mentality) do NOT represent all women, only left-wing or socialist women. Back to the film--have to remember the time in which it was made. The feminist, and indeed media, image of working woman was working YUPPIE women, the image was one of grey or blue business suits with sneakers running through the streets of Manhattan to a corner office or aspiring to one, i.e. "Working Girl" or even "9-5". The reality of most working women simply did not conform to that image. The film is neither anti or pro feminist, it is unrealistic.

[–] wordartist1 13 years ago

You can have a career and be a good mother and I would argue that quality time is important with not one but both parents. In my situation, I am finishing my dissertation, teach at the college level, and am looking for a job as a professor right now. My husband is currently working as a waiter because it is a job that allows him the flexibility to be home with our daughter when I am not here. We've had to make a sacrifice in terms of money for all of this to happen, but we each spend a significant quantity of quality time with our 1-year-old. Once I finish my doctorate in a few months and have a job as a professor, my husband plans to go back to school to become a teacher. Ariamne, I think the fact that we both have the ability to make choices about what path to take and that in both your case and my case, the men have taken time and made sacrifices to be involved fathers IS a product of feminism. Modern feminism is supposed to be about the ability to make those choices and for less division of gender roles. In the past, a woman working part time while her husband pursued an advanced degree would have been considered normal and admirable but a man doing the same would not be. In the movie, I think the message actually does get at the heart of feminism - being about choice and the blurring of traditional male and female qualities, as both are positive qualities to have. You can be both ambitious and empathetic, for example. I think that too often the problem is that feminism and RADICAL feminism are conflated.

When the world slips you a jeffrey, stroke the furry wall.

[–] TeaBunny 12 years ago

>> Feminism has failed women, first in the 60's and 70's when we were told children were a burden and an impediment to our success and that abortion was preferable >>

I know this is an old post, but what a crock of CRAP.

------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes

[–] DrmWmn 13 years ago

J.C. was at the top of her game because she didn't have a family. She was a business woman. When she adopted Elizabeth, Fritz made it very clear to her that she couldn't have such a luxury and be a top executive. He said he had it all because of his wife being there to take care of the family while he ran a business.

She got blackballed for choosing to be a mom and moved to the country. There she, on her own and while raising Elizabeth, started her own business. One that made her old job come calling and begging for her!

I don't see anti-feminism in anyway. In fact, she proved she could do it her way: be a successful business woman AND be a mother. She made Fritz eat his own words. She did it on her own, without a husband or partner to help take care of the child. She did it as a single mom and she did it perfectly.

Feminism was about a woman having choices and equality of men in both the work place and at home. It had little to do with whether or not a woman could or should have a family. This movie showed feminism in my opinion. They tried to give her an ultimatum and she re-wrote the rules .

"My girl would rather masturbate to paper Edward than touch my small peen." - SeriousDuke 2010

[–] kingarthurup 13 years ago

intelligence is anti-feminist

[–] TeaBunny 12 years ago

>> intelligence is anti-feminist >>

I know this is an old post as well, but what a crock of CRAP.

------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes

[–] JeterzGirlNJersey 12 years ago

This movie was not anti-feminist. If anything it was very pro. First, she told her boss to go screw himself after he practically demoted her. She left on her own terms. Second, she eventually started her own successful business that her old boss wanted to buy. She again declined. She basically took control of her own life and stopped letting other people run it. Lastly, she did not feel obligated to raise a child because society wanted her to. I believe she did it because she connected with the baby and did not want those awful people raising her.

It's nobody's business but ours.

[–] rainstreet 12 years ago

I don't think the film is anti-feminist, but it is a relic of a bygone era. These days most companies are more accomodating of women who have children, and more mindful of the need to balance work and family. That doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist in the workplace anymore, but I don't think the execs at Sloane could get away with demoting J.C. today. She could slap them with a huge lawsuit for gender discrimination and she would probably win big.

[–] David_Brown 11 years ago

I am a Politically Right-Wing guy and happen to agree with you, it is a pro-feminist film. (I wrote a long review of this film, so I know it well and more important love it). Basically JC sacrificed everything to do the right thing and save Elizabeth from that couple who wanted to use her like an animal. She then walked away from Felix and the Company, like she walked away from her b/f Steven Buchner (Harold Ramis), who after that couple, is the WORST character in the film (being so nasty as to make JC choose between him and an infant (Elizabeth). I need to say, just because something is feminist and stresses female empowerment, does not mean it is not a family film. "Baby Boom" certainly is and no matter your political beliefs you can enjoy it. Remember the title of the film is still "Baby Boom" and the relationship with Elizabeth is and will be the key one in JC's life (particularly the final scene of the film when Elizabeth calls her "Mama").

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

I don't think J c's boyfriend is nasty. he doesn't try to force J.C. to choose, he just tells her quite simply that he can't cope with the disruption to his life. Men have a right to choose as well.

[–] kathy197778-139-304748 8 years ago

Exactly!

I agree with everything you said here - not to mention the fact that she went from being a corporate slave to an entrepreneur.

She founded a multi million dollar company where she called the shots and didn't have to answer to her unreasonable bosses anymore. She worked at hte agency for a number of years apparently and those cut throat creeps were ready to cut her loose when she adopted a baby. She became financially sustainable and got to call the shots in her own life because of it. How could this possibly be regarded as anything but positive??

[–] Ithilfaen 11 years ago

Now I thought one of the themes of femenizem was that a woman should be allowed to decide what kind of life she wants, and that she shouldn't be made to feel like she has to have and raise children. Yet that's kind of what happens here.

That's funny you say that because that's exactly what happens in the movie for me. She's forced by circumstances into reexamining her life and she finds a different balance without giving away her power as a professional. If they had her take the money at the end and live to raise the kid, that would have been different but she just enjoys being a small business owner and a mother and she found a partner who accepts that. What's anti-feminist about that? She does what she wants and now what's expected of her in one way or another.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] speechless1961-564-488484 9 years ago

That is among the stupidest things I've ever heard. It's a MOVIE. it's for Entertainment! Give it a rest. and GROW UP!

The thing is, she DID choose her own life. She was being forced to give Elizabeth up, but she chose to keep her, at the expense of her relationship and her job. It was her boss and her idiot boyfriend who were being anti-feminist, Not JC.

[–] parisel 9 years ago

I don't think it's anti-feminist or anti-career woman at all. At the end she's a confident, independent woman who knows what she wants. And she doesn't need all those big, strong, powerful men to help poor little her with her business. As she said, if they can do it, so can she.

As far as the baby being forced on her, she had the chance to give her up for adoption, but realized that she loved Elizabeth, and could give her the best life.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.