The Women of Brokeback Mountain
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:11 PM)
I guess I have to admit that I have a friend who lied to two women about his sexuality, marrying them and having a total of four kids. He was conflicted, having grown up in a small town and having to hide his sexuality, but he knew all along that he was far from sincere. The effect on the women was devastating. His kids won't speak to him; not because he is gay per se, but because he lied about it in such a monumentally significant way.
I find it difficult to believe that someone in that situation isn't aware that they are deceiving their wife, and knowing of that when they make their vows. Jack seems to me to be representative of such men; that is the point of his character. Ennis represents men who genuinely reject their sexuality and have overblown fears, while Jack represents men who accept their sexuality but chose to follow the hetero path for reasons other than (strictly) fear.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:37 PM)
Your friend unequivocally did wrong when marrying a second time. When you say he was conflicted, what exactly does this mean? He was absolutely Gay the whole time and if so how would you know? How old was he and what time period did all these events take place? Seems like
if he was a good father
, at least one of the children would grow into adulthood and forgive. Or maybe the kids were too young when the divorces took place (?)
The book and movie are more ambiguous about Jack, though. We cannot know what was in his mind when he made his wedding vows. He may have been seriously trying to make it work. Neither say he went to Mexico or fooled around between his marriage and four years later and he reunited with Ennis. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 10:22 PM)
Yeah, the second marriage was close to unforgivable.
He was conflicted because he knew without doubt that he was gay, but felt the need to conform to hetero norms.
He confided after his second marriage that he knew all along, from puberty onward. He was born at the end of the sixties. He is a hap-hazard father. Part of that is his desire to put his sexuality first as he feels he was made sexually stunted, retarded by society and wants to put himself first, over and above his kids and their needs.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
JayHysterio — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 06:40 AM)
You go a long way around the barn to address something that is pretty basic. 95% of your post is off topic.
Lureen NEVER MISLED JACK. He knew from the first that she was aggressive and a woman who went after what she wantedher reasons are irrelevant; Jack knew what he was getting into. There was nothing in that film that said she was using Jack to take over her dad's business which she stood to legally inherit anyway.
Also, Jack's issue wasn't with Lureen, but with her dad, who no doubt didn't want Jack taking over his business.
You didn't follow the film; Jack hit on the rodeo clown before he met Lureen and his fling with Ennis no doubt showed his deception. His subsequent flings with Ennis and prostitutes while still married is bad behavior no matter how you spin it. Get a divorce if he wanted Ennis that badly.
I repeathad Lureen known about Jack's true nature would she ever have married him? No way. But he hid it.
I also know a woman who married and she said as soon as they got married, the man stopped having sex with her. She then discovered he was gay and had only married her to prevent suspicion of his activities. This is no different, Jack misled her first, then cheated on her.
You can only take this liberal attitude so far. Common decency is more important. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 07:21 AM)
Jay - this is really getting tiring. see 1 through 3
(Just announcing 95% of my post is irrelevant is kind of rude as well. This is a discussion board, point out
why
95% is irrelevant, if you feel that way.)- you refuse to answer my questions. only one example - I don't know how you can just ignore me saying Jack not conforming to society by not marrying and pursuing a gay relationship could cost him his life, and apparently did anyway.
- you keep misrepresenting what we DO know.
(a)Jack hit on the rodeo clown BEFORE he ever met Lureen.
(b)Jack married Lureen thinking he would never see Ennis again - this doesn't mean he wouldn't eventually cheat on Lureen,
but he didn't marry her while cheating with Ennis
or anyone else. - you constantly tearing down Jack, validly or not, does not make Lureen innocent in this. She may or may not have inherited the business automatically. Things were dicey for women then (without a husband or child/heir). Her picking a loser with nothing DO cast aspersions on her motives. Don't you see? He was way beneath her financially, educationally, every kind of way. You ignored this too - she was rich and pretty, could have had anyone she wanted. (remember Jack responding to the bartender - "do I look like I can afford the entry fees for calf roping?" So he LOOKED poor. There was no mistake what she was choosing.
(remember this discussion started out about good women. Is picking a loser to manipulate what a good woman does?)
As I have said in other places, I thought on this posting, Gay men were told it was a passing phase. Jack and Ennis didn't really think of themselves as queer anyway (yes, I'll be fair, Ennis more so), men were expected to get married no matter what in those days. A bachelor was considered very oddly. I know - my great uncle was one.
You cannot presume as you do that Jack married Lureen solely to cover up his homosexuality or to get a job.
He didn't know that Lureen was from a rich family when they met and again, he didn't ever expect to see Ennis again. I don't think there is any indication he married her solely to cover up his homosexuality. He may have, but to say for sure he did, what you have said so far was all before he met her.
You go on and on about "Jack's dishonesty" which I've addressed the bulk of but you forget - in those days it was a man's world. Women were expected to take a lot of crap from a man, both getting beaten and affairs were supposed to be overlooked too. Men getting drunk all the time and many other things was just overlooked as "boys will be boys." Men were completely in charge of the kids, the house, the finances. I've said I don't condone Jack's dishonesty, where it actually occurred, but I understand why he did it. You don't seem to. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I get the impression you are putting a special burden on Jack for lying and not acknowledging the preceding about how it was for women in 1963 with husbands generally. You say Common decency is more important? Yes, lying and the outcomes are sad. But you don't seem to have grasped the impossible burden society put on Gay men at that time, which was almost the whole point of this movie, I wonder why you even watched it. ***
I asked how old you were, because if you didn't live through some of this like I did, it is one thing to talk about, it is another to feel some of this deeply right down to the bone.
*** there was a post somewhere in here, a woman said two married farmers were caught having an affair when she was a kid. No one would work for one of them, he LOST his farm. Does this happen to hetero people, where people would refuse to work for an adulterer? Maybe in 1800 but not in the early 1980s. This is the double standard I'm talking about.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 01:44 AM)
While I agree that Jack knowingly misled Lureen, and had Lureen had known about his sexuality it may have stopped her from marrying Jack, I disagree that she would 'outright' inherit her father's business. She would in name, but in the times that BM discusses she would (likely) have not had executive control without a 'front man'.
She needed a compliant male, willing to take a back seat with her on top- the movie gives us that image quite bluntly. Jack is 'out front' being the 'sales face', while she keeps the books and drives the business. She pays him, he works for her.
Today that would be all very acceptable, even if the male might get some stick from his friends with castration jokes etc. But in the 60s-70s, it was thoroughly expected that the male would inherit, even as an in-law.
That is supported by Proulx's discussion of 'stud duck'. We can speculate that not all relationships at that time would be bound to that social expectation, but in BM Proulx goes to some lengths to discuss the misogyny of the times, using the term stud duck to describe both Lureen's and Jack's fathers.
It was a prevalent attitude, one that I believe Proulx wanted to get across by using Lureen's need to have a replacement stud duck who was no more than a decoy. See what I did there? Anyway; I don't see a need for speculation re the times (even though that would only bolster the argument that Lureen was using Jack), as Proulx seems to want us to see it that way regardless.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
JayHysterio — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 03:02 PM)
Nope. In lieu of no other heirs, it would've legally been her company no matter what the times were back then, and you know damn well her Dad would've excluded Jack from ownership. She knew the books and contacts and the business, all Jack knew was selling, he never rose above being a salesman.
It proves my point about Jack being weak, he never would've had a job like that without Lureen, he'd still be a ranch hand. She gave him a good living. He stayed in an unhappy marriage under her dad's abuse and his subservience to Lureen. A real man would've walked.
And in any case, from what we know Lureen never cheated on him. Jack cheated on her with several, including the guy from the dance that he actually brought home to meet his parents. So he actually cheated on Ennis too.
Jack was a Class AAA screw up. I felt no pity for him at his demise, no matter how it happened. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 01:20 PM)
Things were very different for women until the mid 1970s - for example banks could and did refuse credit cards to single women and even married women needed their husbands to cosign.
Without a prenup, Lureen's father could not have excluded Jack from ownership, he was her husband. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 08:56 PM)
The OP is indulging in revisionist history, if we are to take him seriously. It was a man's world. I would say for better of for worse, but as an old school feminist, it was worse.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 05:27 AM)
Agreed. And a lot of women bought into it too. My paternal grandmother, despite being divorced - extremely rare in those days and especially among farm people, she left the telephone listing in my grandfather's name. Women felt they needed a man between them and the world. That is exactly how she put it. Which was strange, since she ran the farm herself (with older teen sons), did Uncle Don's books for his business - he was the oldest. She was very self sufficient.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 11:20 PM)
http://junkee.com/fake-holden-commercial-perfect-pisstake-gender-stereotypes-advertising/86629
The bit about who owns the farm
All the little devils are proud of Hell.