@Tom Dickinson:
Fair enough on the book vs. movie difference; I can see how it'd work for the comic's story, even though I still think it would've been too shallow for the movie. Plus, it lets the Nega-Scott stuff remain a gag instead of having to be dragged out into a too-obvious metaphor.

And I have been very harsh on Nussbaum's article, because it's filled with the kind of self-righteous indignation that's one of my biggest pet peeves. She keeps calling it "toxic" and "misogynist" — bear in mind she actually says there's no defense for the misogyny in the movie — and takes that as a given. That's not a discussion, and that's not even real feminism.

I'm not just defending a movie that I liked, after all, she liked it, too. I don't think there are any interesting issues raised; I think the article takes a surface-level interpretation and rails against it. And that's not just annoying, but problematic. If artists can't trust their audiences to gauge their work on the whole of what it's saying, instead of just going off against what it says on its surface, then we'll just keep seeing shallow works of art. And if you can't tell the story of a misogynist immature jerk finding redemption without being accused of misogyny yourself, we'll keep seeing shallow depictions of women and relationships. It's a little like standing outside an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and calling everybody a drunk.