Hey all!

I’m speaking about a relationship model that is most common associated with heterosexual couples. BUT BUT BUT here’s the real truth… It’s a relationship model for any kind of relationship when there is an imbalance of power. And Hollywood can claim that it wants strong women all it wants

EXCEPT it released that movie THE MATERIALISTS. It’s about a woman debating between two men where “love” wins the day. When in reality? She blows up her entire life to LOWER her status to meet a man where he’s at rather than insisting he rise to meet her. Yes. The man with more power is painted as a man willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead. When really? It’s possible to have status, money, and power without having to compromise yourself to do it. You don’t have to give up everything for a man. She could have stayed in her position to reform it rather than giving up cuz her attempts to “fix” her dilemma were shallow and short term rather than tackling the entire system that needed to be addressed. It was like using a Band-Aid when a tourniquet is needed. She could have also not have to end up with any man to choose her own agency for a more embodied relationship later on.

So my conclusion about THE MATERIALISTS? It’s anti-woman and anti-tackling systemic change along with the piping a bullshit ideology: LOVE WILL CONQUER ALL. Such hogwash cuz the kind of love they’re advocating is sacrificing EVERYTHING for that “love.” It’s really simple: If you must erase yourself for a relationship to work? That’s not love. It’s also not noble. And it creates an awesome foundation for resentment that absolutely guarantees discord. Cuz after all? How can you be happy when you must deny everything about yourself in order to maintain that relationship? No sex or power or money or anything else is that good. Sure. Maybe in the short term the “gains” feel worth it.

Are they actually “gains” or a bait an switch tactic to keep you hooked? This is what a lot of people complain about in the raging debate about “trad wife” versus the “modern woman.” As I’ve been both, I can speak with some authority. My conclusion? Both are good IF you have own agency rather than being 100% dependent on another person on either side. And that’s why Virginia Woolf said “Every woman must have her own money and her own room.” You may think that I’m being a feminist by quoting this except this is also the benefit for the man too: imagine the incredible pressure of having to be EVERYTHING including the sole financial support for an ENTIRE FAMILY UNIT.

Yes. There are ways to bring value beyond just money. I’ll also tell you that we live in a society with a messed view about those supports and EVEN BIGGER MESSED VIEW around money cuz what is the resounding message of THE MATERIALISTS? You can only have love if you’re broke and on the verge of being homeless. And yup? That movie was released in 2025. Hardly old.

And let’s think about the “Hollywood Machine” creating this message… They’ve long marketed having big houses, fancy clothes, lavish award shows, lots of money, and of course? Lots of cars. And with movies like “THE MATERIALISTS???” It like a modern day version of Marie Antoinette saying “Let them eat cake.” Yes. She actually said more except that’s how it’s marketed. And that’s how these kinds of movies are: ONLY CAKE in times when people need protein along with that cake.

Yes. Some may come back to say that the film company A24 is “independent.” DUDES!?! Their films are sweeping the Hollywood awards shows. How independent is this really? And the relationship model presented in THE MATERIALISTS? The long standing ROM COM model that’s been happening forever and a day. Hardly new stuff.

I’m working my way through all this to consider the kinds of movies to make along with the kinds of relationships that I want… How about you? Does anything in here resonate with you?

Have a glamorous day for fun!!

• Uncategorized