Aww! The mullet makes it even more adorable.

I don't agree with your synopses of this film. It's not, in my view, about her 'winning his heart' or about her 'becoming his equal instead of his object'. It's about a girl's frustrated attempts to get a boy's attention when like many boys he has no respect for anything feminine and girly. She attempts to change herself to suit him, becoming less girly and learning skills he respects, but no amount of trying to de-feminise herself visually is enough to remove the part where she's a girl. She's trying to be his 'equal' only because he doesn't respect girls. Only by finally being bold and showing off her skills with action in a manner that impresses him does she manage to get his attention, but I gather (hope?) from the end that at this point she's frustrated enough to give up on trying to impress him.

This would be so much better if they just cut the one-second clip at the end with "I do" and instead just make it a story about realizing she doesn't have to impress a lame boy with a mullet. I liked it when I thought the part where she scoffs and turns her back on him was the end and that she had realized this bullshit was a waste of time.

Ug! This film just emphasized that girls need to seek a boy partner, and that they need to change to his expectations. I could not stand the "I do." at the end. She should have rode into the sunset, leaving him and his early-learned machismo where being with a girl, pink stuff, and girl bike set-up are 'not good enough." She's too good for the poop-headed mullet boy. What did she even see in him anyways?

I'm not following Graid and Kate. I think that the synopsis is inaccurate, too and I found that I cried because I saw that the girl acquiesced to erasing parts of herself in order to be accepted by someone who was not her equal and not capable of appreciating her to begin with.

@SYD I find what you're saying to be a comment from in a "post-feminist" culture. People really think that that's what feminists are and then extrapolate on a feminist's success in a "man's" world from there. Then you get things like thinking it's a *feminist* idea to spend all night markering your bike for a guy. In reality, a feminist would either walk away or jump her own jump from her own yard if she were trying to be "his equal instead of his object."

Feminists are actually fighting for men and women to stop creating shadows of themselves out of each other and fighting them on that basis. Feminists aren't actually against femininity, when it is not defined in relationship to equally destructive models of masculinity. And indeed feminists get a H*** of a lot more BS in real life when they're attractive and look feminine, but don't acquiesce to assumed roles than when they apologize for being women by either covering up *either* their femaleness or abilities. (Ex: Inez Sainz) Feminists recognize that the trouble is the assumption that you can't do both at the same time and know that it's misogyny that claims that.
Feminists are against acquiescing to that message and THAT'S why "femininity" pisses them off- it's the implicit negation implied by misogyny when the definition is applied in the broader culture, and the usual exchange of power that comes because of being perceived by those in power to have acquiesced to the message. The context of the culture has already determined that power and self-determination without reference to another person is male and only male, and when you're a proponent of femininity, the culture assumes you agree with the message and operate accordingly until it finds out you don't.

Feminist issues with femininity exist because femininity's cultural/functional definition implies a lack of power and agency, not because feminists hate pink or silliness or sensitivity. Some of them do, but they're only arguing for the right to hate those things and still be classified as female, not for the destruction of all things that are actually associated with women. (It's why you have to make up a darn near german frankenstein of a word like "disempowering" to mean the same thing as "emasculation" when you're talking about it being done to a woman and nobody bats an eyelid. Or haha, they just apply "emasculated" to a woman! There is no literal and metaphoric word just for women. The corresponding word for women to literal emasculation is sterilization, a neutral term that can be applied to either sex.) It's akin to encouraging a boycott, which is something you do when you believe that the thing you're boycotting has positive value, but that the greater context prevents it from being tied up in something destructive, not when you think it doesn't have any value at all.

I don't think feminists who want to be all women to masculine in the sense that they want women to actually be completely like men don't really exist, and if they do, they're confused about their own message and their purpose and think everyone transgender and don't mind if the species dies out. The whole supposition that they do eminds me of the red herring lie that "recruiting" is a pillar of the "Gay Agenda." Feminists want women to be free to be themselves. It's someone else who's manipulating what that means in a broader perspective and I don't think too many feminists aren't aware of that. Like I said, it's encouraging a boycott and you can only do that when you believe the thing you're boycotting has value.

I recognized myself in this -- I wanted to date a boy who could jump his bike off of stuff, but none of them were interested in me because I was a girl, and a fat, ugly, geeky one at that. So, I gradually taught myself to jump my own bike off of stuff. By the time I was done, I wasn't really interested in the boy anymore. On the other hand, the social norms telling me that I should just stop jumping bikes and have some babies for Pete's sake are threatening to obliterate that sense of empowered self.

(In my case it wasn't jumping bikes, it was driving a standard transmission car and riding motorcycles, but you get the idea.)

Wow, seriously? How on Earth was this movie posted here as a *positive* thing?

Seconding all the above comments, pretty much. That was just really bad. The ending almost redeemed it-- but then, of course, they had to tack on that idiotic "I do".

I kind of like that her interest in the boy inspired the girl to take risks and challenge herself. Before he rejected her she was just standing around in nice clothes and smiling, hoping that her physical attractiveness would interest him. That's a pretty boring lifestyle. But he had a dream and was focused only on that. So she started training and experimenting and became quite fierce. In the end, it seems, they compromised, playing by both biking and marrying.

I think this is a female manifestation of "RAPE CULTURE" we hear so oft about.

However, instead of the male usually being the rapist, the woman is the rapist.

Course, the allusion was toned way down.

Still, a nice reversal of gender roles.

Was I the only one who didnt feel like the change of outfits was the girl completely changing "who she is" but just choosing to wear different styles of clothes on different days? She wore the flower girl dress the day of the wedding and then more comfortable clothes so that she could ride a bike more comfortably. I also liked the ending without the 1 second clip, however, and it seems to me that the part with the "I do" is intended as a cute little joke rather than poof, now that she has the boy she can turn back into a girly girl.

Shoot, I thought the movie ended perfectly--before the credits. Then I read the comments and had to watch to the very end. More than anything, I think the movie is a sardonic commentary on our "marriage culture." She's proven to herself that she is his equal, so is fit to marry him. It leaves us the question: is he fit to marry her? And: do we even need marriage at all? Does it serve any useful purpose? Why does she feel she needs to "marry" him? He certainly doesn't "complete" her in any way.

Since when is riding a bike masculine? Also, it's under 7 minutes long and about children. They're not actually married for chrissakes. Changing herself? She's less then 10 years old; I should bloody well hope she does change. Besides, she's already into riding a bike and every kids learns to take off the training wheels.

Anyway, if our interest in someone as a friend (since that's what they are when they're pre-sexual, as I well remember from my own kindergarten marriages) or even a romantic partner spurs us to challenge ourselves, leave behind poor qualities (like standing around in a dress) and be better (practice and work hard to achieve competence) that's a good thing. I'd venture to say that's half the point of human relationships, in fact. What if it were two boys or two girls? Or a little boy was the focus of the story and he got it together to make friends with a little girl?

Just because some of you chose to view this as an example of the devilish world of hetero marriage culture doesn't mean it's true, it just shows you've been over-Dworkining all day and now see all relationships between men and women as predatory and damaging. There are no sexual politics here to parse -- the story revolves around prepubescent children regardless of the adult filmmaker.

perhaps the idea that it would have been better in the end if it wasn't indicated that she still wanted tog et with him, maybe that idea is itself a bit androcentric? like i always heard my literature teacher say that its strong for a woman to refuse a man, to walk out the door and not look back. We're often told of women being strong or smart to behave like this, why? i dunno..but i think it has to do with the girls in my school saying stuff like 'it was so stupid of her to not walk out on him, she deserved what she got'(they were talking about an abused housewife from a news story) Well i've followed this blog since i was 11 so i'm no expert but i thought i'd offer something up, i hardly post on here. I'm a 16 year old girl from Trinidad.

I saw the clip as being more of an example of enculturation. The little girl goes to a wedding and sees people getting married and decides she wants to try out that role.

I actually even see it as affirming women because the girl at first tries to alter her bike by changing the color, but after the boy tells her that her bike is a girl's bike, she decides that it doesn't really matter because she can succeed anyways.