Friday, June 16, 2006

I Knew There Was A Reason....

that I could never bring myself to even pick up a copy of "Bridget Jones' Diary". Some small voice nagged away at my subconscious saying don't do it, don't read even one word, it will drive you insane with anger... I should have payed closer attention to that small voice because yesterday a bit of BJ (how appropriate) snuck into my eyeline and I accidentally read Fielding's column in the Independent. You just know what's coming don't you? Well, get ready for it.

Having had her baby boy, Bridget's perineum is being sewn up after her tear/episiotomy. The doctor asks Bridget's boyfriend if he would prefer a 16 or a 17 (it may even have been an 18, I cannot bring myself to re-read the passage) Boyfriend Daniel opts for 14. I can only assume that this refers to the tightness of Bridget's vagina as it might have been at various ages. I am reeling in shock.

Is it ironic? Am I not understanding something? Is this post-feminism? An allusion to the designer vagina or the possible aesthetic value of the pubescent cunt? I cannot find this funny. Or clever. I find that I have been right to avoid the books; if this is a representative section then clearly there is nothing in them worth reading. I can only hope that I have seriously misunderstood the passage and it is actually a discussion about dress size or penis length.
Hmm.

UPDATE: I have checked the actual wording in Thursday's Independent. here is the sentence in it's entirity:

There was some disgusting stitching to be done, and distinctly heard doctor say, "Ok, Daniel, what's it to be - 16-year-old or 17-year-old?", to which Daniel replied, excitedly, "Could you make it 14? Thank-you Doctor!". Humph.

I thought so. I absolutely despair. How any woman can read this and not feel revulsion is beyond me.

12 comments:

dreamer said...

Wow. I hope it was about something else completely. Although the films were patriarchy fodder, they didn't quite go that far. Surely not?

asdgasdfaserwe said...

That is so wrong on so many levels. The BJ books/films are, at best, a pile of cack, but the passage you've quoted goes beyond everyday misogyny. Worst of all: most people will find it funny.

anna said...

When i was undertaking my obstetric placement, during my nurse training (1980's), a Midwife told me that during stitching of the tear/episiotomy, up until only a few years previously, a "husbands knot" was also inserted. To put the vagina back to pre-baby tightness...Hideous!

spotted elephant said...

Boy, really funny. How anyone could find that funny is beyond me.

witchy-woo said...

Sheila Kitzinger wrote about that in one of the childbirth books I read in the early eighties.

Talk about entitlement and privilege, huh?

We only exist for the penis?

grrrrrrrrrrrr

nectarine said...

That is disgusting, really I want to go ant throw up, How the fuck can they get away with writing that?

Anyway so I am going to womancot the independant and write a letter telling them why.

Laurelin said...

My god, that's dreadful. I knew there was a reason I had been instinctively avoiding all BJ stuff.

How can anyone not see that that passage demonstrates the abuse of women- it's not fucking funny.

soopermouse said...

what is worse is the fact that normally the vagina does return to its previous size if no sex is beng had for about 6 to 8 weeks after birth. Not sure if this refers to tears though

FallingStar said...

I admit I have read the BJ books and they haven't got anything this disgusting in them but the patriarchal bullshit is more subtle in the books. The BJ books are pretty much typical 'woman searching for man' books. I can't believe Fielding would stoop this low however, its disgusting!

Edith said...

"Humph." HUMPH?!?!? No, Bridget, try: "AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!"

How awful.

ms. jared said...

i had a friend recommend BJ to me when it first came out. she said it was "hysterical" and that i would "absolutely love it!"

i borrowed her copy and got exactly two pages into it and was like "WTF?" it was so boring and pathetic and the writing wasn't even very good. it read like a stereotype of a stereotype.

i'm glad i went no further. that bit you quoted is disgusting. and it's written by a woman, right? BARF!

xoxo, jared

Nella said...

Yeuch. I didn't mind the books, but that's rank.