The ending is so wrong.

I know that it was the 70's & cynicism was rife & many think "Happy Endings" are dumb or something but I think Joanna should have found a way to cause the Men's Association's downfall.

If this movie is about feminism, it's apparently pro-feminist but it seems to be saying that no matter what women do to achieve the equality they deserve they will fail forever!

Pessimistic, defeatist.

Defeatism doesn't inspire people. Defeatism doesn't raises morale. If Ira Levin wanted to support feminism, he would make something that raised morale. Yes, the Men's Association are despicable but why must they win in the end? Why not show a glimmer of hope?

True, it was the 70's and the folks were weary of the way things were going with Vietnam & whatnot. 70's films express this ennui. But why couldn't they be uplifting? We needed movies that raised morale, not destroy it!

I think someone should rewrite this but change the ending but not in the way the remake did (the remake missed the point of the whole thing & was really stupidly done).

I see many movies as having a social message, even if it's just "entertainment" but movies seem to be defeatist with a Hobbesian view of humanity. Yes, I agree that humanity is flawed but I feel humanity can "think big" & "reach higher".

In MY version of The Stepford Wives, the Men's Association & their evil scheme will fail. There would also be a few sympathetic male characters to represent the good men of the world, the allies.

I love to look in the heads of both Ira Levin & the movie makers. Why write it that way? What's the point?

Why pessimism? Why defeat?

Screw defeat! We as a species need MORE "Happy Endings"! Real life has enough injustice & downer endings on it's own! We need a version of The Stepford Wives where the message is "Yes, you can fight against the oppressors and triumph! Never give up!".