Targeting™ Women is For the Birds!

a Hitch-COCK-a-doodle-dude-ian Bird Toy, sold for "Pride Month" meets the Trans/Marxist Erasure of Women!

🌟A a little “Pride” aside while I work on the rest of the Pride Series in the hopper)🌟

My friends, this is absolutely FOR THE BIRDS!

In honor of “Pride Month,” Target-the-store celebrates the killin’ an’ killing off of women (as a gender, and symbolically). That’s to say BIOLOGICAL WOMEN.

This IS goin’ a mite off the deep end but I think I’m definitely onta sumthin’—give it a once-over yerselfs--an’ see if my cheese ain't slid off my cracker!

“Toyin’” with the idea of taking a cinematic icon (Tippi Hedren as Melanie Daniels in “The Birds”) who was literally an’ brutally ATTACKED by birds in the eponymous Hitchcock movie, Target is doin’ some kinda “arch” or tongue-in-cheek “inside jokey” (not imho funny) take-down of REAL women. This is TWISTED y’all! “Bear” with me (ha!) while I dive inta this ill-conceived “collectible” an’ grouse about it too! (given the orinthological metaphors).

This, below, is the “product” in question—sooooo popular it sold out almost instantly.

This “birdie” is a felted version of Melanie Daniels, the lead character in THE BIRDS—who was attacked BY “the birds”…. notice the blackbird on her shoulder…

THIS here is the “real thing” below — Tippi as Melanie sportin’ the blonde coiffure, chic (or chick!) little scarf, “poils,” the green outfit, red lips an’ all:

The TARGET TOY looks JUST like Melanie. I’ll add that her outfit is not just any green but “parrot” or specifically “love bird” green! Remember this… To note too, clearly (since “fur is out” in the PETA Pee-Pull “whirled”), her mink has been replaced with a respectable “cloth coat” (just like Pat Nixon, lol!) but originally she wears a “trapped animal”—she’ll have to dump en-trapment too in the film…

Below, notice the NECKLACE too (easier ta see here), just like the lil’ Target “birdie.”

Sounds fairly innocuous thus far, no? Mebbe a “tribute” even? BUT look closer.

Why would Target choose to make a mockin’ toy (a “mocking bird?!) by picking a female character ATTACKED by BIRDS (literally in the film—for bein’ “sexy” and beautiful—being too womanly!)

Now this puttin’ pretty women in peril is indeed a Hitchcockian thing — it ties in with a “redemption” arc in many of Hitch’s lady characters — female sexuality “threatens” folks (men, “good” women, etc), so it gits “killed” or at very least, after no small amount of trama, it gits its volume dialed way down. However, PRIDE-the-Movement should NOT be celebratin’ characters that evoke cinematized bloody attacks on women an’ gettin’ their womanly “natures” denatured!

Thus, I think their iconography with this “boid” is velly screwed up an’ arguably purdy misogynistic.

To wit: we know that PRIDE-the-movement is in lockstep with the NWO / “trans”-humanism, gender-queer-itty, etc. such that today’s “faux” women / trans-women an’ other invented female identities are now supplantin’ actual women—who are now bein’ erased.

Target is at the forefront (or was at least) of “affirming” imaginary genders thru clothing an’ erasin’ existing ones thru marketing an’ messaging.

We also know that TARGET (the store) has been at the ideological and political vanguard of this malevolent movement (“they” of last-year’s most outrageous PRIDE merchandisin’ including tuck-able swimwear for “girls with penises” an’ featurin’ some of the freakiest trans-wear (chest binders fer kids, etc) an’ messaging on products beyond the “pale”—some of which I’ll address in my ongoin’ “End of Pride” series).

I.e. they “market” the denial of womanhood—they muck with the meaning of “women” as we / society has known it.

Today’s topsy-turvy is complete when a dude— “Girly girl” Dylan Mulvaney—is given audience with the US President an’ promoted as an ideal “woman”—an’ said ta be more “girlish” than the actual ladies. So if gen-u-ine females are to be negated (or “attacked”—verbally in demonstrations AND literally such as when writers like JK Rowling get canceled and threatened for sayin’ something as batshit cwazy as “women are women” omg!)—then we may ask, an’ what ARE the rest’v us who were born with a very specific set of chromosomes an’ used ta be denoted thusly: ♀️!

Are we bio-ladies just chopped liver? (don’t answer that yet—but, fwiw they DID use real liverwurst in Hitchcock’s movie to “lure” the real birds onto Tippi Hedren so they’d actually PECK HER!) Oh yes! an’ no animals were harmed in the makin’ of the movie but the LEAD ACTRESS WAS! (literally!)📌 — told they’d use “mechanical” birds in that attic scene an’ then there was a switch for the real ones (which had already pecked crew on the set)! No doubt “Team Target” heard’ bout this—at least the higher ups that “confected” this faux-felted bauble for the masses as it was well-publicized.

📌 So apart from lyin’ to Tippi an’ using REAL BIRDS (planned all along for her attic scene that took five days of this trauma)—Hitchcock also, according to Hedren, “developed a ‘crazed obsession’ with her and subjected her to cruel barbs and sexual innuendo.” He did NOT molest her physically nor threaten to do so, but the “comments” were indeed harmful. All very Machiavellian. Also, script writer Evan Hunter was quoted as sayin’, “You could see in the dailies that she was being attacked. She was visibly crumbling under the assault of the birds…She wasn’t acting, she was reacting.” Dailies are unedited footage screened at the end of each day—for the director, cast, an’ crew. So THAT is scary indeed.

THIS is what TARGET is dubiously “celebratin’ “ as a “symbol of PRIDE”….

In the new “PECKING ORDER” women come LAST—is that “on Target” or what? 🎯

One more factoid—in the movie when Melanie is attacked by the birds she’s BACKED INTO A CLOSET—literally (sym-bollock-ly) a “real women” is forced (back) INTO the closet. Lordy how APT today! (Once she shuts herself in, the birds actually attack the closet door to “git to her”—even there she is NOT safe!) Nope, y’all, I don’t think Hitch was thinkin’ about real women bein’ erased at the time—but he WAS thinkin’ about real women bein’ TRAPPED by PREDATORY BIRDS! As revenge! (see below) Real women made helpless by vicious “pecks” an’ CLAWS far sharper than the most well-manicured lady nails! (Yep, Hitchcock wuz kinda screwed up…)

But the QUEER movement as “run by” Target has co-opted Hitchcock’s attack on women—that’s for SURE! To the “PROUD” folks in charge of marketin’ at Target, we women are bird food?! Attack-worthy if we “chirp up?” or just by virtue of “existing” as real women—an’ affront to the non-binary Which-What-Who’s. Nice? (not!).

Also: Many gay men (wull some at least) are both DRAWN TO women — to their fashions, their allure, their style — wherein imitation is the “best” compliment (such as in drag) but also REPELLED by it! That too is part’ve this Target-ted “Pride” campaign with Miz Tippy as a stuffed bird, “rendered tame and own-able,” no doubt ‘bout it—some “queen” had to have thunk it up, no straight man COULD HAVE dunnit (nope, not even Hitchcock).

THE PSYCHO who also is for “The Birds!”

Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Norman Bates (the character) — a repressed cross-dressin’ gay man (Tony Perkins himself swung that way for many years his’self, surely Hitch was hip to that fact…) and as a character, embodies—LITERALLY—that same connundrum about women that many gay men / mama’s boys—DO seem ta have (imho—an’ that’s wuther they work for Target or not!). “Pretty Boy” and “QUEER BIRD”—that’d be Norman with all the inner struggles that this Target “campaign” embodies (i.e. love/hate relationship with women—real women that is!)

Tony Perkins in PSYCHO (notice the STARE an’ the “kick lights” in his dark eyes…)

The “Mutha” issue…

It’s the dilemma straight men face too (as dramatized in “The Birds”) that “no girl is good enuf for mama” an’ thus “beware of tarts.” In many gay men, specifically, it’s mixed with that other conundrum—i.e. there’s a kinda-sorta wanna”bee” a woman phenomenon (not at all experienced by straight fellas) while simultaneously havin’ an element of repulsion to womanhood—i.e. that “no no no laydee git away from me with yer too-real lady-ness kinda thing,” no? (Not ta be gross but it’s ooh, nice perfume, nice silk dress, but no no no “lady parts!”) Again, that angle is not experienced by the hetero world but exists in a space that recognizes each of these male “takes” on Hitchcock in both films—i.e. such that gay men can comfortably be fans of both films. In each there is a grand display of lady plumage (beauty / beautiful lead blonde actresses) and in both there is the destruction of “the female.” Plus the “muthas” in both films keep their sons on tight leashes—Mrs Bates in “Psycho” & Lydia (leading male character Mitch’s mom in “The Birds”—I’ll talk ‘bout her shortly) both bein’ tough mothers with their claws (figuratively) on their boys.

So… for the “queer” men that make up the Target-Marketin’ gang (and many to WHOM Target is marketin’ this boid), it’s like they want the “aura” or essence of feminity—to possess it—while still holdin’ their arguably priviledged male status (aka their “perch”)—i.e. the ability to look down superciliously an’ comment on it all—like birds of prey from their vantage points in trees or in flight, lookin’ down upon “what morsels they like,” no?

In other words, the bird analogy (in both films) accurately articulates the position the male (gay or straight) can take on women… with them as superior birds of prey an’ the ladies, ditherin’ love birds. It goes further too!

The male blackbirds in “The Birds” (I’ll cover them in greater detail below…) are not unlike Norman-the-character… who is perpetually beady-eyed, peering, always-watching…. (In film we called it “the male gaze!”) A man who (whoo whooo whoo!…) oggles young ‘n pretty Marion CRANE (yup, that’s the Janet Leigh character’s name—a BIRD in flight, if ya know the plot), like a hungry bird-of-prey himself, and then ATTACKS quite brutally (not unlike “the vengeful birds” of “The Birds” ‘cept Norman uses a knife not his…er… pecker!).

even that BLACKBIRD on top watches Marion over her shoulder (per the framing shot’s calculated framing)

Norman is always “watchin’ “ from his perch… the ultimate voyeur. He is always associated with predatory sharp-eyed hawks and owls, odd “duck” though he is (!). Bird-like (also tall, thin, a mite flighty…) he “peers” down, thru, at or into peep holes from the safety of his nest. Notice the vignetting effect on the “peep show” of Marion in her black lacy undies (above)—it shows it’s Normie’s peeping-Tom voyeuristic P.O.V. and also we see the bird art in Marion’s room—she is being watched by Norman’s avian “stand ins” when he’s not right there. ICK. BUT the concept of bein’ WATCHED is important—men watchin’ women… it’s very much in “The Birds” too.

FWIW, I’m quite sure the beady-eyed bird-like stare was part’ve Perkins own performance prep work — actors literally WATCH animals (we do!) for inspiration. You NEVER see him with “soft eyes”— always they are sharp, calculatin’, HUNGRY. Even the “wide eyed” look is more of a startle than anything normal, “human.”

Thus he keeps a predatory watch on the ladies. Similarly, the beady-eyed birds—blackbirds ‘specially—keep a watch on Melanie. As does Hitchcock…always (via the camera, the shots, the birds themselves a stand-in for the male “eye.”)

Now wait a cotton-pickin’ minute— yer sayin’, “whoa Nellie, er Daisy, this is a DISTRACTION cuz ‘Psycho’ is not ‘The Birds.’“ OH but it IS—in more’n one way too. I’d betcha dollars ta donuts the “boyz“ at Target who picked this “Trippy Tippy Bird” concept outta a hat are well-aware of the birds that figure into “Psycho”—same director, an’nuther blond who is “prey’d” upon due ta bein’ womanly—an’ due to womanly wiles too! (Marion embezzled money, Melanie played a trick an’ impersonated a pet-store clerk…) There are many similarities an’ methinks that arch little “toy” was developed by those very much AWARE of ‘em. Just my 2 cents!

We DO know that in “Psycho” a confused young man cannot “deal” with bein’ attracted to purdy women (his overbearin’ MOTHER would not approve…) so he BECOMES ONE… literally becomes his “disapprovin’ “ mama too! (in grisly drag!). oooh—Targét! 🎯

quotin’ Norman Bates: “Well, a boy’s best friend is his mother…”

Oh, an’ as I mentioned, he COLLECTS an’ STUFFS “birds” — stuffed harmless LIKE THE TARGET TOY!—an’ thefore made SAFE! (Snuffs ‘em out too thatta way…)

Amateur taxidermist Norman with some of the birds he’s stuffed…

So Tippi in the “Boids” IS a gay icon of sorts—but she also represents a battered woman! A woman rendered “safe.” In toy form—STUFFED too!
So… where d’ya draw the line?

drag performer channelin’ Melanie Daniels…

Here’s how I’d draw that line, “poisonally.”
It bothers me not-at-all that some adults in drag wanna “do” Melanie for an evenin’—it’s funny in the same way as spoofin’ old Joan Crawford in “Queen Bee” is funny. BUT this Target toy is NOT the same thing… it’s a MASS MARKETED product! Intended for whom? Adults or kids? BOTH? It’s a little muddy there, no? A mass marketed collectible is NOT the same as one funny “Mary” in pantyhose showin’ up to a party on a Saturday night for a….”hoot!” (sorry could not resist).

And this Target bird, see, it’s not quite campy—an’ it DOES have an underlyin’ message I DO NOT LIKE.

An’ with the ever-watchin’ blackbird on Melanie’s shoulder—i.e. her tormenter! (literally on the toy’s wing-top) —it’s that dense “Murder of Crows” (murderous blackbirds in the movie!) right literally on her shoulder, even in some PR photos that surely were referenced in that toy. An’ that blackbird is just like Tippi’s director, Hitch, who associates himeself with them, the cleverest, darkest birds of mystery an’ horror an’ trickster games that date all the way back to Aesop! — Wull that’s just a mite TOO MUCH for comfort or humor on a TOY. Perched…on a toy.

We bird man himself….

….inside every cinematic blackbird is Hitchcock!

AN ASIDE: I know Hitchcock is definitely sexist an’ kinda messed up BUT I have ta say that I LOVE love love the films of Alfred Hitchcock (also “Hitchcock Presents” the old series—Daisy here grew up on reruns!). I’ll add too that whilst he’s purdy hard (shamefully so) on his icy beauties, he’s far softer on his eminently likeable “good girls” like Doris Day an’ Barbara Bel Geddes. An’ anyone that lets Thelma Ritter chew up some scenery is good-by-me (I ADORE Thelma Ritter!) Of course we “Girl Fridays” found these “gal next door’s” a mite more relatable than the glamour girls—so we natch’urly cut Sir Alfred slack. Not makin’ excuses for the genius but just sayin’ how many women who enjoy his films manage to “navigate” the thorny territory of his minimally masked misogyny…

Indeed, I know full well that the portly master moviemaker with the famous bald pate profile had a major problem with women—near-every one of his films are crafted to “work thru” Hitch’s own issues surroundin’ the females of the species—sometimes VERY darkly. (I kin see all that quite clearly, an’ YET like, nay LOVE the films.)

So a few thoughts on the famous director ‘fore gettin’ back to the TARGET!🎯

First, ya cain’t help notice: Hitch wuz not “a looker”…

He married a devoted “plain” wife (Alma) —who many say was a huge help behind the scenes in this filmmakin’. Hitch was, from all I gather, a decent husband an’ father to his also-plain daughter Patricia. BUT he quietly lusted after beautiful icy-blondes that he COULD NOT HAVE — includin’ Grace Kelly, Janet Leigh, Kim Novak, an’ Tippi Hedren (he did make actual inappropriate suggestions to Tippi per her biography— all such overtures were vehemently refused an’ resulted in some on-the-set “revenge” in the form of “shade” from the director an’ some arguably unsafe scenes she wuz subjected to—not flatterin’ for sure.—see my 📌 footnote above for the deets)

There is a “thing” ‘bout ugly men goin’ hog wild for leggy beauties… it was a phenomenon of the era an’ in Hollyweird in general (lookit lovely Jean Harlow’s husbands fer an example…oy, tho’ they say she really did love ‘em…) an’ no doubt Alfred Hitchcock was keenly aware of it—like any boy holdin’ a wholesome sandwich an’ who broods ‘bout not havin’ the candy he wants — the kind mama would not approve of! But some boys got their candy…

Agent Swifty (Irving) Lazar an’ his beautiful model wife Mary (an’ yup, they had a good marriage, stayed together ‘til the end)—fab photo by Annie Leibovitz

Not makin’ excuses, but I will say that all his works were crafted durin’ a time where Freud & Dali informed Hitch’s vision, includin’ that about women (he literally worked with Dali directly an’ many of his films explore Freudian themes “with a will”). Both of those two brilliant influencers (ha!) were velly screwed up too. NOW…given all that “psycho babble an’ psycho baggage…” most of us informed viewers can put the heightened reality into CONTEXT—not to “condone” it by any means but to understand it, permitting us to suspend judgement while watchin’ the films—always in suspense too!

Even Hitch’s worst behavior came at a time where actresses (most outrageously) were SLAPPED to “emote!” An’ in some movies—within the filmed story / plot itself—they were slapped or similarly mistreated to be “taught a lesson.” Horrid stuff—but that was part of the “male mentality“ at the time. So in the CONTEXT of “era” we must place many of those filmmakers, includin’ Hitchcock. Anyway… just HOLD THAT THOUGHT…

Today—we know a lot better ‘bout how ta treat us ladies RESPECTFULLY (this TOTALLY apart from “Marxist feminism” which was co-opted from the start). We expect better behavior from men-folks! An’ that would include “mens” — gay, straight, or “whatevah” which applies to the “Targeted” Crowed here. Yeah, even those of indeterminate “gender identity” should know better. But Targét wants to send us back to the “dark ages” or at least to the era where “real” women were trouble or… “for the boids.”

So that’s why THIS “promotion” sticks in my craw. THEY all—includin’ the higher-ups at TARGET—should KNOW BETTER!

With this toy, they’re toyin’ with US!

Yes, that little toy is kinda “cute” UNTIL and UNLESS ya know the “meanin’ “ of it all—which likely most gay-blade purchasers do NOT—but sumbuddy in marketin’ DOES. Absolutely—this is dark, it’s arch, there IS a mean-spiritedness to it.

An’ (to quoteth the blackbird…) Nevertheless (nevermore nevermore!), I don’t fer a minute excuse this—even with the “assumption” that the purchasers are too dumb ta know whut they’re buyin’…. the decision-makers that green-lit this “toy,” know BETTER.

“Movie Star” with bird (blackbird…a bird of prey) on her shoulder….

So…. to recap…Target (store)—which should 100% know better— is sellin’ toys, in honor of “Pride Month,” promoting one particular BIRD TOY (‘member now women are often called “birds” or “birdies” or bird brains…) depicting the bloodied female VICTIM Melanie Daniels, the lead character from Alfred Hitchcock’s famous “terror” film—”The Birds.” Target & terror? Really!

WOMEN & CHILDREN — attacked!

We all know the “trans / trans-human” war is on Women & Children. If you erase women an’ let men have babies (or chicks with dicks have babies?!) then BOTH women (as we knew ‘em—biologically speakin’) an’ children too—are now meaningless “identities.” An’ given the groomin’ agenda (seperate from this one but related—that “all” children are “sexual” beings an’ can start bein’ sexual even as toddlers—this is Kinsey PLUS the WHO School Curriculum adopted, in part, even in the USA!), then even children—by definition—are erased as are “boys and girls”—quaint notions of yesteryear. So this “birdie” toy fits right into the above destructive “dialectic.”

women & girls attacked here—look at ALL the blackbirds!

Let me add that in this film WOMEN (‘specially) and CHILDREN (‘specially girls) are ATTACKED by birds (characterized as “male”), ANGERED by, it seems, the girls’ “female” behavior.

Eventually males are also attacked (the entire town!), but it seems their being attacked IS the FAULT of the girls, ‘specially Melanie, who is the “naughty girl” for likin’ Mitch (Rod Taylor), while the “good girl” Annie (Suzanne Pleshette), a brunette in flannel shirts an’ pants, who still has a soft spot for Mitch, is pushed outta the picture (she’s a non-threatenin’ “un-girly” nice gal…)—an’ eventually DIES!

In other words, bein’ “really” “FEMALE” means danger! It BRINGS trouble—includin’ to innocent (other) women, children too. Oy Hitch!

To wit, in the Tides Diner scene Melanie is directly blamed by the very “dyke-y” Mrs Bundy (center) for the bird attacks—YES Hitch is very consciously playin’ with “iconography” an’ archetypes… an’ here in this pivotal scene the “tides turn” very much—that blame pivots right on to Melanie an’ the destruction of her “femme fatale” persona—and so begins the CONstruction of her “conversion.”

Mrs Bundy figgers it out!

In this very scene, Melanie is accused by this very “mad” woman (that’s both angry an’ unhinged), Mrs Bundy, who has studied birds and knows they don’t ominously “flock” like they’re doing. (Implied by Mrs Bundy’s “j’accuse”; sexy women bring out the worst—the most “unnatural” predatory male behavior—BLAME the women!)

Instead of Melanie’s girl-likes-boy attraction behavior being coded as “natural” (heck, being attracted to a handsome bachelor like Mitch ain’t unnatural at all!), Mrs Bundy tells Melanie directly that she, Melanie, brought on the birds and with ‘em their “unnatural” behavior and attacks. (puff puff!—an’ yup, that IS kinda campy that bit)

So git this—ladies are blamed for the predatory / BAD BEHAVIOR of the men-folks in this movie. Ring a bell folks?

Mitch himself is characterized as a good little “fledgling” who hasn’t left his mother’s “nest” (he still lives at home). Mitch’s mama Lydia (played by the inimitable Jessica Tandy) does NOT approve of Melanie — think ‘bout that concept—that “mama” does not approve of the sexy birdie that brings “love birds” (literally as a pet-store gift for Mitch’s little sister) an’ cheekily shakes her tail feathers (albeit tastefully) as “birdies” do—is not by chance. Mama preferred Annie-the-sweet an’ de-sexed school teacher. Lydia is not unlike Mrs Bates… (see?!) Mitch represents the best of the male species—worth “saving” from the corruptin’ influences of “woman!” which can lead them to be… dangerous! predatory even! An’ it’s all women’s fault.

So clearly Melanie bein’ feminine and “too much woman” —kinda like Eve bringin’ on the devil?!—is at FAULT in this movie.

This movie takes place before breakin’ up the fambly was desirable as it is NOW in 2024 (an’ has been for a few decades, I’m sad ta say). So Melanie “breaks up” the then-valued fambly unit (in the plot), an’ unmoors their cozy security (which is based on the stability gained from havin’ a town of only “chaste” nearly-sexless women—the younger ones not much more’n handmaids?). Melanie does so literally when she ‘trespasses” or, uninvited, “crosses, nay breaches the bay” with her caged “love birds.” Crossin’ these calm waters, “troubling” them in her SPEED BOAT (yeah yeah, symbolism…) She leaves the excitment of San Francisco for “calmer waters” an’ must therefore… simmer down! to fit in.

So this toy “birdie” implies that “stuffed” or FAKE WOMEN (like the kind Target “sells”) are thereby “safer,” innocuous, as they don’t pose the same hormonal risk to “male-DOM.” Inert, sold, commoditized, they now pose zero “threat” to men as they are also STUFFED an’ “tamed.” Wow, right?

Again, it’s easy ta say, c’mon now Daisy, why git all hot ‘n bothered over a silly stuffed plush toy?

• Cuz we are all symbolic BEINGS an’ even if the literal analogies don’t sink in—something just might register AND as always, they’re TELLIN’ US what they mean to do with these cheap little baubles—i.e. cancelin’ out women—real women!

And again, this “innocent little toy,” by association with the director that made an entire film about a women-killin’ bird stuffer—does also evoke the “art” of taxidermy that renders “untamed” wild creatures harmless, just as does, Norman (Norm-Man?/normal man faced with “temptation?”….), Norman killer of beautiful women—oy again!

And remember, this isn’t just a girl that’s a bird—the toy is a HUMANIZED BIRD (okay, that’s gettin’ inta the trans-human thing too!)

Sirens of all sorts! (Ambulances in “The Birds” an’ the all-lure /allure of “bird women” too!)

Ya may not know it but the SIRENS of ANCIENT GREEE that LURED MEN TO THEIR DEATHS… were BIRD WOMEN not MERMAIDS!

Yup—that’s right—”real” bird women are men killers! (The sirens did, per legend, lure men to their deaths at sea—but their voices rent the air, they didn’t come from the waters…)

so the “SIRENS” were bird-ladies whose voices lured men to their deaths!

Rendering the birds (bird-ladies) HARMLESS…

This “Taming of the Shrew” scenario (Kage gits her comeuppance—but, here notta spoof like the play!) happens most dramatically in “The Birds” — BELOW (2nd photo not the first below this’un) you’ll see is Melanie after bein’ beaten into “submission” by the male gulls, no longer—wait fer it—GULL-ible!, & blackbirds too; she’s no longer a “threat” by virtue of bein’ rendered “sexless” an’ nearly comotose! — the male birds did the “peckin’ “ to literally pluck out her pluck!

Melanie is first pecked en-route

So back to the “taming” of the wild bird… after many attacks (nearly ritualistic in the movie), Melanie is de-feathered of both HER PRIDE an’ her PLUMAGE! She barely resembles her formerly spunky, stunning, carefree self.

AH, all due ta the punishment of those male “attack” birds with their “peckers!” (sorry sorry!)… perched above, still watchin’ even as Melanie is “removed” from the house a near-invalid; male “peckers” won this round, the males WIN in this movie.

The only females “allowed” to be livin’ breathin’ boobie prizes are the “mamas” like Lydia, the innocent girls like Cathy, an’ the “hikin’ dykes” like Mz Bundy. A permitted “sub-species” but not with “full rights” to show their plumeage.

I think that’s Hitchcock’s uneasy solution to the “battle” between the sexes—but he don’t like it much either—he keeps bringin’ back those unattainable allurin’ women—never stopped doin’ so. Never stopped makin’ movies that retold variations of the same story—even while tellin’ other stories, too, along the way.

He knew the camera LOVED women the most in his films, he knew that there were greater depths to plumb. And… from time to time…he’d also revisit “children”—who near-always suffer the sins of their parents…

ANYWHO… the children ARE NOT ALRIGHT in “The Birds” (Just like today…)

a MURDER of crows at the PLAYGROUND

In a world of “safe spaces” Hitchcock has his avian attackers hit playgrounds, schools, birthday parties, yards and of course homes.

Again, mentioning the children in the film, I call to yer attention the fact that CHILDREN are literally an’ brutally attacked—by the BLACK BIRDS! — we see this from many angles, in fast cuts, scene-to-scene:

Watching youn’uns bein’ harmed thusly is traumatic in and of itself—

the black birds attack the CHILDREN

Although I did mention that Melanie is, per the story, deemed to be “at fault” for bringin’ the BIRDS to Bodega Bay (where the movie takes place), so I must clarify too that near the start of the film she literally BUYS TWO “LOVE BIRDS” to bring to Mitch (on a motor boat) for his kid sister Cathy’s birthday. She physically, then, brings love in the bright bodies of those birds there. (They’re bright green an’ red with yellow splashes—versus the black of the crows-of-destruction that come “in their wake.”) When she arrives with “birds in hand,” it’s both a practical joke (she had pretended to be a shop girl workin’ at the pet store where Mitch saw the birds he wanted to purchase for his improbably younger sister), AND a bit of a flirtatious deceit as Melanie impersonates a salesgirl to “sell” Mitch on the birds. (Mitch ain’t fooled but pretends to be at first—thus makin’ Mitch & Melanie potential “mates” as they both like the same games.) But/also—the entire trajectory of Melanie starts with deceit, however much in good humor it may be… Women (keep) gettin’ punished for their deceit…it’s a thing in the films of Alfred Hitchcock, that’s for sure.

Anywho… now the love birds are male and female LOVE BIRDS—a pair!—and “love” (romantic) means trouble in this flick—thus she, Melanie, started the trouble! (FEMALE TROUBLE!) by bringin’ in a non-native species to “the Bay.”

Note their color AND their “cage” - inset her pointy shoe, drivin’ the birds to Mitch

Melanie is “green” too—foxy, sure, an’ yet NAIVE (hence green thatta way) but she brings a colorful aura that does not jibe with the settin’. She fails to understand the unwritten but otherwise understood “rules” of polite society. She doesn’t like playin’ by them rules—tho’ she’s FORCED to do so eventually, when worn down by constant trauma. The movie celebrates her gettin’ defeated—beaten down.

Is TARGET celebratin’ the same defeat with their Tippi-Bird?

Thus, if wild love bird Melanie wants to “cage” Mitch, she’ll need to be “caged” herself, in the film—which is kinda the point of the movie (i.e. us watchin’ her being TAMED enough to sit pretty in a “safe” cage…)

Target offers one more “accessory” for their Hitchcock-tribute bird—a cheesy replica of Melanie’s Ashton Martin (she’s rich an’ drives this fawncy veehicle)—but in the movie it certainly does not say PRIDE on the danged license plate…

Target calls this their “Pride car Featherly Friend accessory”

Melanie starts out in a car, natch (the above), but she must cross the bay. So she leaves her own car—a layer of her upper crust protection! to take a motor boat (unfamiliar but she’s “game”). Upon arrivin’ stealthily by boat (in her mink no less! birds at her feet—see the inset above), Melanie meets Mitch’s lil’ sis Cathy (age 11) an’ they hit it off well—Cathy LOVES the love birds! So now this “innocent” little girl is connected with Melanie who has “brought the trouble” and “uncaged it.” (“Sex” comes to Bodega Bay—birds-gone-wild!)

Now Cathy will unfortunately have to be “harmed” by this association with (the ostensibly over-sexed) Melanie. And Melanie, marked with the scarlet letter “Type A+” of her own blood (visually she’s bloodied on an’ off durin’ the entire film!) is singled out from the git-go as a “bad girl” for being very feminine—very “female.” She also, by bringin’ the birds to Bodega, “harms” Annie, the “safe” an’ avowedly chaste, “unsexed” good-girl-next-door school teacher and “rustic” who will die a gory death DUE TO Melanie’s overt female-ness actin’ like a curse upon the town. (Annie is the martyr for Mitch, natch.)📌📌

Melanie IS the Target actually…

📌📌 Somethin’ I cain’t quite GRASP in “gay land” surrounds a lesbian fan-dumb cult around Annie and an imagined Annie + Melanie romance. IMAGINED. So Melanie spends a night at Annie’s place when she first arrives as it would be inapprorpiate for he to stay with Mitch (the scene is chaste, nothin’ REMOTELY off there OR “sexy”). The two gals talk an’ smoke ciggies. It’s clear they both like the same man. As I said, Annie is played by husky voice Suzanne Pleshette who wears pants. Pants make her safe, not a dyke—that’s be Miz Bundy!—Annie is, imho, the fresh-faced girl next door—she burns a danged candle for ex-beau Mitch—so how the heck the gay-girls think this is some kinda lesbo scene has me flummoxed. SOME say this fan-dumb thang amongst the lesbians is why Melanie bird was selected — BUT I do not believe gay women are runnin’ the Target show nor had jack-all with this selection. The bird series (there are others) has a TOTALLY gay male mark on it—the whole “birds-as-ladies” thing is purdy sexist so I do NOT see women as makin’ this campaign or the "toy.” So I’m not’a gonna focus on this “ANGLE” in this here essay… As ya know, some folks just wanna BELIEVE in the “Gayness of Things NOT Remotely Gay” (heppened ta my older daughter as I ‘splained HERE.) So ‘nuff said onnit.

A BLOODY BARGAIN (not a bargain)…
Only after Melanie suffers bloody horrible trauma (physical and mental) an’ gits “humbled” can she be allowed to have Mitch. I.e. women gotta suffer an’ lose all their feminine wiles to be “permitted” a husband / mate (by the end of “The Birds,” Melanie literally looks like heck too!) to “git” the man. (See again, the above photo of Melanie “tamed” an’ bein’ carried out and fully SUPPORTED by Mitch—how apt visually as she once supported herself—independent—stood on her own 2 feet—before)

Now we have beaten, bloodied, battered Melanie—if she comes outta this “okay” she “may” be forgiven and “allowed” to be a part of the community. (not unlike a perfect“Stepford Wife?”)

Anywhoo… I just cain’t see this is sumthin’ “cute” for gay men to make a stuffed birdie doll over. It’s TWISTED!

BLACKBIRD BYE BYE…

Now a bit more about them “black birds” as I wind this down…. like the one on the shoulder of the Target “stuffed” birdie…(look again at that toy, it’s there on Melanie bird’s “wing” top)

Hitchcock seems to closely identify himself with the clever ebony creatures… there are MORE publicity photos of Hitch posin’ with blackbirds than nearly all other types of promo shots…interestin’ no? So he’s a bit of a clever black bird himself? Maybe so… This way he’s doin’ the preyin’ an’ the peckin’—no henpecked hubby he! It must might be his workin’ thru his own lady issues?! (Methinks yes!)

In any event, if ya think them gulls are scary in the movie, the blackbirds are even more predatory and ominous (an’ Hitch’s identity is partly ABOUT bein’ ominous!—oft in silhouette too—as he delights in givin’ his audience a frisson!). Hitch is a bit of a voyeur himself, the way he frames the shots an’ has us pinned to our seats like some kinda stuff birds ourselves!

he always has us watchin’ the birdie… I sure hope that stogie wasn’t lit!

Hitch is CERTAINLY a cinematic (sin-a-matic) predator with us, his audience as prey! Brilliant, indubitably, he also plays with our emotions—makes us all sympathize with the victims an’ then forces us to watch helpless as they are “preyed upon”—while we “spy” on them shamefully yet unable (much as we’d like) to shout at them any warnin’s—don’t go in there! open it! he’s behind the door! Nope, we are silenced. Truly he’s a maestro when it comes to orchestratin’ our fear.

An’ yes, in some of his films the men ARE the victims too. In “Rear Window” we have Jimmy Stewart literally handicapped—unable to move, unable to have agency an’ somewhat dependent on the ladies. In “Rope” the victim is decidedly male too. But still, Hitch has a “thing” about ladies… and blackbirds too, with he himself inserted by bird-proxy as predator, with ladies (and children) as prey.*

*Not pedo-like but I feel he believes the children suffer from the “sins” of the mothers…

DARK OMENS

Blackbirds are also harbingers of dark things to come—ill omens, they “portend” the worst. Hitchcock had much ta “crow about”—an’ yet was kind’a an’ old crow himself!

And he LOVED to warn folks about impendin’ doom, gloom, or woe!

CROWS / BLACKBIRDS are also DARK in other ways…

It happens to be at Cathy’s birthday party (where children gather to have fun… WHERE her present is “love birds” from Melanie) — at this celebration, that BLACK BIRDS attack the children. It’s not the seagulls that had launched the initial attacks (perhaps they did so because their sea-territory was “invaded” by love birds?), but their darker pals the BLACK BIRDS (like I said, even more predatory!)

As I pointed out, on the Target “toy” it’s a BLACKBIRD on the Movie Star’s shoulder—NOT a seagull. a blackbird!

An’ there are also famous photos of Tippi Hedren herself—blackbird on her own chic shoulders. NO WAY the brazen “boys” in the marketin’ & design departments at Target didn’t know ‘bout these. So this is like havin’ HITCH on her shoulders, no? An’ the “boyz” at Target carried that on by givin’ Melanie-bird the Director right on her felted “bird” shoulder too!

I have ta say it but this is a stunnin’ photo!

Of course apart from the traumatic experience on the set of “The Birds,” Tippi loved animals—includin’ “big cats.” But not ta wax Freudian yet again, if Hitch was a black bird, this staged photo below with “him” lightin’ her cigarette is a mite provocative (even if only HE was aware in stagin’ this scenario for publicity). Hmmmm…. nothin’ ta “crow about” in that kinda manipulation…. though again, the shot is both fun an’ cheeky.

Who lights the cigarette in all film noirs has the POWER. Here the blackbird lights Tippi’s ciggy—GUESS who has the power? (Hitch of course is the blackbird)

Gettin’ back ta them blackbirds one last time!

In Target toyland, not only is that HITCHCOCK on her shoulder—like a witch’s familiar—but it’s also a reminder of the HARM the character brought down on the town—a flyin’ implement of destruction—AND… Melanie literally wears on her shoulder the bird that attacked the innocent CHILDREN. Wears it, even in these “PR” poses, as if she “brought that bird” on herself! Almost like an… invitation? Did it alight on her shoulder due to her feminine “witchcraft?” It seems simultaneously playful… and evil.

This to say, however, that the Target STORE makes a toy that has on its shoulder a flying, swooping, peckin’ MURDER(er) of CHILDREN (pickin’ ‘em off like snipers)

In the film, as the threat of the bird attacks increase an’ intensify, Melanie is put on the exhausting treadmill to become more humble (an’ less polished!), hence “worthy” of Mitch, as we saw.

But / also, her MOTHERING “instincts” are brought out when the risk to the children becomes apparant. THAT too is part of her “REDEMPTION”… She will have to be “more like” Lydia to past muster.

Melanie becomes fond of Cathy (she morphs maternal to the point of riskin’ her own life to save Cathy’s) but there are HINTS all along that Melanie will have to “change” to become part of the “fold”— like in purchasin’ this “nightie” more befittin’ of “The Harvey Girls” than anything Melanie would have ever worn (she’s purdy chic, far more i. Magnin than Vermont Country Store!) An’ yet we see her bein’ “game”—willin’ to adapt a bit even to the point where Annie finds it cringe-worthy!

When Melanie helps guide some of the kids getting attacked by blackbirds to safety in a car (now a humble station wagon, no city-gal Ashton Martin!) it’s clear that she has not been sufficiently humbled yet! Shortly after this selfless rescue of children, the streets explode with FIRE from the gas station and they all must flee again!

It’s as if bird attacks ain’t enuf—Melanie has ta go thru a TRIAL BY FIRE!

deja vu here… looks like the “Summer of Love” hit Northern Californy!

Specifically, this hellish “burst” seems to happen when Melanie literally arrives on the scene—it’s almost as if she brings lust and fire together—egads!—that’s even when her aim is to save the children. (Guess she’s still “hot stuff” an’ must be “cooled off” yet?) But again, it’s made clear Melanie alone is “at fault” for bringin’ the blackbirds TO the children, as if SHE is sacrificing them—an’ indeed, some do die in the film, some adults too.

This scene of conflagration associates Melanie as bein’ a bit of a harbinger of death too. That brings in the ol’ chestnut sex=death…eek! (And there’s that trendy toy again that hints at the “birdie” whose wolf-whistle worthy sex appeal brought on the death of children—not intended, natch—but by association?! woah!)

So, if ya know the movie you know what happens to Melanie, an’ if ya know THAT you’ll know that it’s not “child’s play”—it’s dark stuff.

RINGin’ a BELL? A fire bell?

In the film the punishment that includes (as ya see) FIRE—an’ all manner of dee-struction near-biblical kinda reminds me of the BLM Defund the Police “peaceful protests” (where cities got burned down). Mebbe I’m goin’ out on a limb here—but perhaps it’s no coincidence that Target Inc. played a role in the George Floyd “events” that razed parts of Minneapolis, where Target keeps its headquarters.

These FALSE-“retribution” kind of fires—false as Melanie does not deserve it one bit—be they blamin’ women for their sexuality which should NOT threaten ANYONE or blamin’ WHITE FOLKS an’ COPS for bein’ RACIST—are all CONTRIVED!

Can we also connect the dots here with the staged / psyop-productions of Men LIGHTING THEMSELVES ON FIRE ? (For my take on one of the recent PSY-OPS of self-immolation in Manhattan — at the “Psy-Ops” link scroll down to the part of the stack ta see where I wrote about that). “Yup. Orchestrated” METROPOLITAN IMMOLATIONS “spread”…”like wildfire!”…not unlike what moviegoers witnessed in Bodega Bay—I might even call ‘em “revenge fires.”

COLLECTIVE & PUBLIC PUNISHMENT?!

We too must be witness to the trauma of Melanie’s near-martyrdom for her crime of bein’ too “womanly.”

she is in shock but looks nearly hypnotized—catatonic!

They REALLY PLAY UP her bein’ brutalized an’ transformed—just as much as her posin’ with blackbirds (i.e. her “familiar” an’ “handler” at least for this film—Sir Alfred!) Some kinda “toy” this version of Melanie would’a made, eh?

Nearly all the stills, posters, an’ lobby cards include the gory images of Melanie Daniels bein’ ATTACKED or bloodied an’ sufferin’. That is the “draw” for the film!

So… they publicized her bein’ brutalized an’ in the film itself, “moralized”about behavior once “normalized”—a lotta “ize” on her too!

Seems that for Melanie to be allowed to live (an’ be with Mich) she’s gotta eat a lotta humble pie (baked with 4 an’ 20 blackbirds!), and be repeatedly humiliated, her powdered perfection nearly spoiled, hairdo undone, makeup wore off, “love bird suit” ruined.

SUBDUED on the sofa… with hands that “keep her in her place!”

More of the PR Campaign… Melanie bein’ attacked “front an’ center”…

In summary… this “THEME,” these characters, are too dark to “toy with”

I really do QUESTION when Target chooses to “highlight” this VERY ADULT film (see above) with a “Collectible Plaything”. That it’s a toy that kids could git is fairly objectionable but even for adults—it’s dark—CERTAINLY (imho) not the kinda thing for a “department store.” Perhaps it could find a better-suited home as one of those “reinvented” / upcycled dolls on Etsy? Or perhaps in 2D variations on “Deviant Art”—a site which often has twisted takes on all sorts of themes. But truly, this ain’t an “ornament” or a “toy” for a department store.

I just sit slack-jawed at the thought of a film about “women’s comeuppance” via PUNISHMENT (an’ bloody Hell too!) being what Target is commemoratin’ in honor of the gender-queers + “PRIDE”?! YES, Alfred Hitchcock was indeed a great story teller, filmmaker, an’ curious raconteur. I’m all FOR his legacy bein’ made to last. But not this way—an’ surely PRIDE should not be about the elimination of biological women or celebratin’ harms that come to them.

As I said at the top—an’ have shown in this “long think”—this “toy” signals the literal ERASURE (in the film) of WOMEN and CHILDREN (literally attacked on the big screen). Their TORMENTS are DRAMATIZED, played out as near-biblical retribution. PLUS we cannot fail to mention the well-known “non-diegetic” (extra-scenic) torments of Tippi Hedren herself, as an actress under the thumb of her somewhat sadistic employer!

Way to go, Target? REALLY?

With this “toy” Target is toying with us. As if we couldn’t/ wouldn’t see it! Shovin’ it in our faces!

Wull, I fer one noticed—I may be a LONE VOICE in the ain’t-this-fabulous world wide web—but it sets me uneasy—it’s most UNEMPATHETIC. It bothers me just as much as the Target rainbow girlie swimsuits with the cue-ball crotch “pockets”…

Target produced a product that “embodies” that take down of REAL an’ genuine womanhood/ femininity and the humiliation an’ on-set “torture” of an actress famously mistreated on the set! Thus an’ therefore:

I call FOWL ! (tee hee, yup, an’nuther boid joke!)

But this ain’t “Daffy.”

And “oh my stars,” I DO find it amusin’ this boid is called “Movie Star” (vs Melanie Bird) as it GENERALIZES “star-dumb” at a time in history when many regular (former?) movie-goers feel that the famous “stars” of today should be brought down to Earth outta the heavens…, off their undeserved pedestals. Tippi Hedren WAS a real start—poised, polished, glamorous—and talented. But today our movie stars are humiliated in silly tranny clothing (made to cross- dress) an’ made to twerk an’ twist as IF they were on stage at some satanic burlesque show. Thus many are DONE with all this hollyweird hoopla feelin’ that movie stars TODAY should be taken down a peg for their haughty attitudes or just the bad acting. Just sayin’ it’s interesting timing—the toy comes at a time where old stars still may shine (if not canceled) but the new ones are truly dim—an’ fake—dim LED bulbs indeed!

And regarding the ERASURE OF CHILDREN—of innocent childhood, I gotta say that too is “Targét!” With the toy AND the entire “Target Philosophy” of late.

No, I cannot say anything about this is okay (not for this little boy either..)

Pushin’ that insidious trans an’ gender-queer agenda EVEN on very young children (via their marketing and products) AND pushin’ the slippery slogans that NEGATE children by prematurely sexualizin’ them and by denying who they are (boys and girls) is (imho) fairly criminal.

No I ain’t for censorship but “sex shops” aside, regular STORES should not have SEXUAL AGENDAS—or ANY agendas for that matter. Nor should these department stores be sellin’ sexualized products. Y’all know Target wuz sellin’ a mug that said “gender fluid” on it—the double-entendre is simply gross! It does NOT belong in any kinda fambly store (imo)—I mean eeewww (an’ the graphics look kinda nasty too—it ain’t some purdy or cute thang, no sirree).

Even before seein’ this totally twisted “Bird Toy”—I purdy much have boycotted the store (‘cept for one $3 plastic tub an usin’ their “loo” a couple times) — An’ readers here know that I recently did an “exposé” of sorts on the joint here:

a photo exposé - The Ruthless Ravishing of Retail!

It’s odd but TARGET-the-STORE seems ta be on a VERY strange trajectory—or self-ejectory is more like it! The are both ahead of the “agenda game” an’ mebbe sufferin’ the most FROM it.

Meantimes, I’m sure “The Cabal” has a good snicker knowin’ some parents bought that lil’ birdie for the kiddies—a toy that recalls a movie where kids got pecked to DEATH.

That kids would git this is kinda nauseatin’—again, a department store is not the place for such twisted irony (at best), misogyny at worst…

Thus concludes my take on this not-so-harmless toy bein’ completely “FOR THE BOIDS!”

So… I guess it’s time ta sing… BYE BYE BIRDIE!
(an’ hope the above one will toodle away in “her” kiddie car)

FINALLY—then, given the today’s theme of CANCELING WOMEN — There IS more to see, more to learn…

So as a last suggestion for ya thirsty ones here, I’d like to share a BRILLIANT (an’ fairly short) viddeyo (linked below) about HOW womanhood—is bein’ TAKEN DOWN an’ how GENDER—is also bein’ stripped of meaning.

• It’s a MARXEST COUP (as Alex-was-right would say…) on our MINDS.

Elsa whose great stack is called The Truth Summit, recently posted HERE sharin’ Major Stephen Coughlin’s “brilliant interview” on how Marxism is takin’ over the USA — it’s 3 hours but worth every minute!

Upon my discoverin’ Major Coughlin (amazin’ stuff) via that first viddeyo, I scratched the surface a bit an’ came up with this GEM that TOTALLY gives y’all perspective on both this here-postin’ (‘bout the symbolic / sin-bollock! toyin’ with our reality—with truth) an’ also on the entire DIALECTIC that informs the destruction of WOMEN as part of the takedown of our society an’ government, an’ social structure as a whole. Watch it here below (an’ if time do check out the above-linked brilliant interview too!)

THE WAR ON WOMEN:

click on the image above, you’ll git ta the viddeyo!

Now I cain’t leave y’all without a song ‘r two—so here ya go!

First, one that sweetly redeems the othewise ominous blackbird and brings us soarin’ “into the light!”

(Crackpotty note: in the clip below we start out with the REAL Paul who wrote the dang song an’ recorded it before his 1966 death—yeah, I know it was released in ‘68 with the newfangled/ newfungled “Faul” an’ co—but look at the start—we have the real Paul singin’—pure, sweet, a joy ta behold. May he RIP!)

Next up: Leonard Cohen, who knews a thing or two about trauma an’ livin’ on the edge (he was “experimented on” at McGill an’ was sumthin’ of a Manchurian Candidate—an’nuther story for an’nuther time), he has tried, in his way, to be free… As we too must do!

An’ finally… a little upbeat an’ completely goofy number fer y’all—
The Tennessee Birdwalk!

Here’s to inspirin’ flights of fancy even while yer nestin’ at home!
Daisy

NOW ya kin buy me a cuppa java if ya like, alwayz grateful fer y’all!
https://ko-fi.com/daisymoses

A Saturday Nite BONUS BITE:
An’ fer a super-fun bonus—here’s a tee-riffic version of the “Red Red Robin” — my kinda “boid!” Enjoy!