Previously: Is “It” Feminist?
Charles Addams was distantly related to President John Adams, who laughed at his wife when she asked him to “remember the ladies” in politics. -7
However, he’s also related to Abigail Adams and good for fuckin’ Abigail Adams. +6
Addams’ second wife “combined Morticia-like looks with diabolical legal scheming.” +10 to her
Itt had a child named What, eschewing gendered naming conventions. +4
Itt speaks a high-pitched gibberish because Itt doesn’t need to impress you. +3
Male-identified (to our knowledge) and sported traditionally feminine long hair… +5
…Yet because of male privilege long, luxurious hair that requires difficult maintenance is seen as quirky and appealing on Itt (as evidenced by his ability to womanize) while women are seen as vain and frivolous. -10
The Addams Family tv series debuted in 1964, the same year LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. +8
Itt is married, participating in a noted patriarchal institution. -5
The Addams’ family credo is “Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc,” vaguely latin for “we gladly feast on those who would subdue us,” which sounds like something we’d come up with. +6
Itt is short, and good for short men who can get it because conventional male beauty standards depict short men as undesirable, and clearly that is not the case for Itt. +5
The Addams Family (film) was released in 1991, the same year Bonnie Raitt released Luck of the Draw, a watershed moment in feminism for your girl. +5
Wait though, is it supposed to be a joke that Itt is short and ugly and can still attract women? Oh that won’t do. -4
And the assumption is that it’s funny too because women are typically shallow when it comes to men’s looks? -3
Signature Derby hat is too close to a fedora. -6
Results: +17, decidedly feminist.
i love this so much
Right? A fine example of the wonderfulness that is The Toast.
yess “Signature Derby hat is too close to a fedora. -6”
Best. Follow up post. Ever.
Also, watching the Adams Family as a kid, it never once struck me that Itt attracting the ladies was supposed to be a joke. I always thought he was super-legit winning ladies by not talking over them all of the time and listening to them when they spoke. I may be projecting, though.
Same!
To elaborate, Tully was an awful person who treated his wife poorly, and Itt won her over by being a caring…uh, individual.
Me, too!
Itt was definitely a step up from her last husband.
This! I just thought it was a cute thing – Margaret thinks the Addams are all ‘abnormal’, and ends up thrilled to be accepted into their clan (maybe she had a weird streak in her all along, she could just ‘eat’ her son alive, after all); Tully tries to pimp her out and ends up losing her for good. And from Margaret’s lines, Itt seems to be asking her about her feelings, so I’m sure he’s as devoted a partner as Gomez and Fester (and Fester also gets the punchline part about Gomez being jealous of his success with the ladies, rather than viceversa.)
However, he’s also related to Abigail Adams and good for fuckin’ Abigail Adams. +6
I initially read the fuckin’ in this sentence as a verb and was Very Disconcerted.
Abigail Adams is almost, but not entirely, awesome enough to make up for her husband’s many deficiencies. Sounds about right.
Gah, I’m so conflicted about Johnny. Because he was clearly disastrous in so many ways but also he did a lot of things before those Acts and he gets so glossed over in most people’s familiarity with the era.
Mostly, I need to him to remain at least a(n antihero) nominal protagonist to give substance to all the stories where TJ IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST SERIOUSLY UGH THAT GUY. Which, admittedly, has been a need lessened lately through the labor of True Patriot Lin-Manuel.
I know, brah. Adams is, imho, the most human of the founding fathers. He’s great at what he does, but he fucks up a lot and nobody lets him have any fun. Just give him some meditation lessons and bell hooks and he’d be one of my historical faves.
Adams’ presidency was not particularly great–his most important accomplishments came before then, especially the politicking he did to help secure the Declaration–but sometimes it seems worth noticing that the list of first presidents basically goes slaveowner-Adams-slaveowner-slaveowner-slaveowner-Adams-slaveowner. Like, if we’re picking faves, that seems like a relevant fact. Plus he avoided war with France.
I think it’s interesting that from the distant vantage point of the present, and even before I was old and wise enough to realize just how much weight to put on the “enslaved people” variable, all of my faves of the revolutionary/constitutional era were the northern, city-dwelling lawyers.
Of course, it’s almost certainly no coincidence that the enslavers were also the ones writing obnoxious, navel-gazing pontifications on how any government operating more than six feet outside their own front door was clearly the highest form of tyranny.
A civics lesson from a slaver. Hey neighbor
Your debts are paid cuz you don’t pay for labor
“We plant seeds in the South. We create.”
Yeah, keep ranting
We know who’s really doing the planting
Yes. More comment section poetry, please.
Northern city-dwelling lawyers, yes! Of course they all argued with each other but that’s part of what they were for. Meanwhile the founding cadre of Virginians spent a lot of time imagining a pastoral version of America that simply never came into existence.
I should hunt down a biography of John Quincy, I don’t think that guy gets enough credit.
I am aware of the flaws of the other people around at the time. I am also aware of the good things that TJ did. But seriously, fuck that guy. I just cannot with him.
I can never quite dislike ol’ John (though I will happily watch everyone in 1776 & Hamilton jeer at him) because he had the sense to be married to Abigail, who is The Best.
John Adams is my problematic fave of the founding fathers.
He was the worst, but yet… weirdly endearing? Like, I couldn’t stand being in the same room as him for too long, but there was an honesty in him that I appreciate. Unlike, say, Jefferson or Washington, Adams didn’t try to carefully create a fake enlightened moral persona to present to the world. He just went around being his obnoxious puritan self. And also unlike Jefferson and Washington, he didn’t own people, so there’s that.
And despite that icky comment to Abigail, they were otherwise a pretty great power couple. Their letters to each other are wonderful to read. Also, she basically WAS his cabinet during his presidency; apparently some people even called her “Mrs. President.” God, imagine President Abigail Adams, though.
“let’s face it you’d rather get with Thing” oh my oh my, feed the horse.
The Addams’ family credo is “Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc,” vaguely latin for “we gladly feast on those who would subdue us,” which sounds like something we’d come up with. +6
BRB having this tattooed right under my collar bones.
dooooon’t the Latin is so ungrammatical. i mean DO and if you ever meet me and i complain, you should probably punch me in the snout for being such an annoying nerd
Or…you could tell me how to do it correctly? Not that I’ll really do it, but I think it’s a good phrase to keep in one’s pocket, if not emblazoned above one’s breasts.
the great tragedy in my life is that i don’t know enough Latin to be able to provide a correct translation, only enough to know that that one doesn’t seem right. but if i ever find a good translation, i will join you in the breast-tattoo
Maybe this? “Libenter cenamus istos qui nos subicere velint.”
Oh hey, Classics is useful today!
I would say “illos devoramus, qui nos subdant” -> “Those we devour, who would subdue us”; “qui” is possibly optional and you might be able to reverse the order of the clauses, but idiomatic Latin epigrammetry is hard so I’m not sure.
Yeah, “Sic gorgiuamus…” really means something more like, “Thus do we growl that (our) big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below”. (I was fussing around with this awhile ago.) Someone recommended “Laeti vescimur nos subacturis” which seems right to me, but honestly my Latin is twenty years rusty at this point.
Yes! Luck of the Draw as watershed moment in personal feminism. I knew somebody else got that.
“The Addams’ family credo is “Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc,” vaguely latin for “we gladly feast on those who would subdue us,” which sounds like something we’d come up with.”
I am always happy when I find other people whose response to peoples’ attempts to subdue them is to eat them. Eat the world, Toast. Eat the world.
There seems to be a lot of good cannibalism related credos around: “Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est.” According to David Forster Wallace: “They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier”.
So glad to see this return. I humbly request installments featuring every improper noun and all of their variations, including ze and hir.
So what can possibly be next in this series?
Is IT feminist?
Maybe there are variations on that and what.
Or who. Whom. Is Hume feminist?
Could do “IT Crowd”, to branch out further. I love the show, but it would not score well.
It Girl? Was Clara Bowes feminist?
I love you. That is all.
This series is fantastic!
“Addams’ second wife “combined Morticia-like looks with diabolical legal scheming.” +10 to her”
Goals.
Oh damn, I am also distantly related to John Adams! I just lost seven feminism points. *womp womp*
I’m distantly related to Dan Quayle. I’d rather be related to John Adams!
(We have the same Mayflower ancestors. Which isn’t that impressive when you realize that MOST people with Mayflower ancestors have the same ones we do. They were prolific and hardy.)
We gladly feast on those who would subdue us.
yuss my life etc
YESSSSSSSS
I share the same birthday as George Dubya, Nancy Reagan and Sly Stallone. I probably shouldn't actually describe myself as "feminist".
Yeah, "Sic gorgiuamus…" really means something more like, "Thus do we growl that (our) big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below". (I was fussing around with this awhile ago.) Someone recommended “Laeti vescimur nos subacturis" which seems right to me, but honestly my Latin is twenty years rusty at this point.