I'm not familiar with any of Kent's work with SAG, altho I do know he is/was involved. My opinions were of him more as a person. First of all, a year or so ago, I read a report or interview or something (and for the life of me, I can't remember where, and can't find it again ) in which he and his family were at a function. Could have been an interview, an appearance in a parade, or something. Apparently he was either a moment or two late, or had to step away and when he returned he indicated that his child (I think his daughter) had acted up and he 'had to smack her.' Or words very close to that. Whatever those words were, that kind of put a bad taste in my mouth.
Anyway I kind of forgot about that, but recently someone posted a listing on eBay for a magazine article from the '70s. It was one of those "celebrities discuss the issues" kinds of thing, getting a "pro" and "con" answer from two people. The question was about whether a woman needed to have children in order to be fulfilled. McCord was on the "pro" side with an emphatic yes. He more or less stated (though not in these words) that married women who don't have children aren't fulfillng their womanly destiny, which is to raise children and create a welcoming home for the family (i.e., husband and children). And he outright did say that he was "anti-women's lib," using that exact phrase.
Now, I realize that this was many years ago when such ideas were a little more common (altho pretty much on the decline, thank heavens). And I also know that people's ideas can change drastically over 40 years. But still, to think that young, handsome Jim Reed--who was a younger, more 'modern' and progressive man than his older partner--to think that he was played by someone with those views.... it makes me sad.
(I think I can still get my hands on the link to the article, and when I do I'll post it.)
reply
share