Hmmm, yes, I see, I think, where you're coming from now, and I'd certainly agree that there ought to be room for "non-mothers to be mothers," for anyone to fulfill a nuturing, protecting kind of role that mothers are typically thought to fufill. I suppose I just felt that killing off Newt and Hicks felt cheap - felt more motivated by mercenary than political ("political" - is that the right word?) motives. I distrusted the franchise - I didn't really think it was that thoughtful.
If it wasn't mercenary and you're right, it does seem, I suppose, like they killed off what had become, by the end of Aliens
, a traditional nuclear family - father (Hicks), mother (Ripley), child (Newt) - and left the individual, a woman. If so, I think I distrust what that sets up, too - seemingly, that what's been accepted as the traditional unit must always be overturned in order to evolve - in order "to accept the radical politics of change." I don't want to have to say that that traditional unit is always
suspect - I get defensive, I suppose, because, well, that's my own life right now. Does that mean there's some battle now that I can't be a part of because I've embraced this life? I know you're not trying to get personal here, so I'm not really taking offense
, I'm just trying to understand the implications here of what you want to embrace, of what you see going on in the film(s). Why, really, does Ripley have
to lose Hicks and Newt to continue her battle for the place of Woman? Can she not both have those relationships and
fight on? Can I not be a feminist as well as having a husband and children? Do you see my dilemma?