Double standard much?

[Paul]

This is something that bothers me in real life and also the Buffyverse. Why is it that discriminating against women is (rightfully) considered misogynistic and disgusting, yet discrimination against men by women is just feminism and somehow acceptable?

Example: compare the characters of Anya(nka) and Caleb. Anya initially despises men and has spent over 1000 years inflicting brutal punishments and death on them. Many of her early comments are explicitly misandric and downright frightening (she made a guy cannibalise himself? Jesus Christ!). Yet she is portayed as a likable and comedic character who just didn't know any better, and who receives a nice redemptive arc culminating in a semi-heroic death. Caleb on the other hand, makes similar sexist comments about women and murders a handful of girls, yet is treated with absolute contempt by the characters, writers, and fans. Even his death is a symbolic punishment, being emasculated by a female character.

Also compare Warren and Willow. Now, most fans hate Warren with a passion and consider him a piece of excrement but I disagree and sympathise with him. Warren is to Willow what Faith is to Buffy; he's basically Willow under different circumstances. They have similar backgrounds (academically gifted but bullied and ignored growing up) and their motives are identical (both want power and respect at all cost). Many of their actions are comparable; Warren had a sincere relationship with Katrina but his insecurities and personality flaws drove her away. The same happened with Willow and Tara. Both characters fixed the problem in the same way; by removing their partners' free will and control, essentially raping them. Warren and Willow were both good people, but their hunger for power corrupted them as they abused their natural talents. But again, whereas Willow was portrayed as sympathetic and redeemed herself, Warren was depicted as scum and murdered in a horrific way as punishment for his misogyny.

You could argue that Warren's actions are more gender-motivated than Willow's, making him more sexist. But really, Warren abuses men as much as he abuses women. He gets revenge on his old bully, beats up Xander, and manipulates Jonathan and Andrew. He wants power over everyone, just like Willow. Is he actually misogynistic, or just perceived that way because he's male? If he were female, but behaved the exact same way, would you still hate him?

Now don't get me wrong, obviously Anya and Willow are more likable characters than Warren and Caleb, but that's because of how they're portrayed. Do you think the show is being unfair by punishing the male characters, but glorifying the women as "femme fatales" and giving them a chance at redemption? Also, picture this; had a male character sexually exploited a female the way Buffy exploits Spike, would you still be a fan of that relationship?

Like I say, this bothers me a lot in real life. I've had many arguments with people who believe in chivalry (which I consider patronising... good manners and repsect should not be gender-exclusive) and even been accused of being sexist myself (because I said it was just as acceptable to hit a women as a man... i.e., not acceptable at all). I think because I'm a gay male and identify so much with females, I can be a little gender-blind and any kind of inequality pisses me off.

[Emmie]

Paul, Anyanka wreaking vengeance on men is not feminism and it is not considered okay. It's treated humorously through Anya, but that's all within context of the fact that women in real life don't really do these things in prevalence.

But again, Anyanka wreaking vengeance isn't a feminist role model. So your initial premise here is kinda ringing the wrong bells.

As for opportunities for redemption, it's not just the "femme fatales" - Spike is arguably the greatest figure of redemption from BtVS. So opportunities abound - it all depends on if the people actually want to change. Warren and Caleb were lacking in remorse.

[Paul]

Dec 7, 2009 20:48:34 GMT -5 Emmie said:

Paul, Anyanka wreaking vengeance on men is not feminism and it is not considered okay. It's treated humorously through Anya, but that's all within context of the fact that women in real life don't really do these things.

But again, Anyanka wreaking vengeance isn't a feminist role model. So your initial premise here is kinda ringing the wrong bells.

I believe Anya was originally concieved as an extreme form of feminism. A lot of the characters were desiged to explore different aspects of feminism and female relationships (Willow = lesbianism, Dawn = sisterhood). Anya was basically the evil feminist. I'm not saying her actions are considered okay, but they're far more acceptable than if it were a male. Imagine a male vengeance demon who spent 1000 years punishing women. Would you still be as fond of that character or would you write him off a sexist prick?

Good point though that vengeance demons aren't real, and are therefore less scary than a human rapist like Warren. Doesn't justify everything though.

[Emmie]

Feminism is not about vengeance, it's about equality. That's like saying Islam is about terrorism.

So are their evil Muslims, evil Feminists and also evil Christians? Or is it rather that there are Muslims who do evil things, Feminists who do evil things and Christians who do evil things and justify their actions in the name of their belief system?

It's the person who is the source of evil there, the person who warps the belief system.

[willowsummers]

I don't believe in that either. I think that trying to battle a past injustice by overcompensating and allowing the trod upon to do whatever, because it's their due, happens too much and I think it's wrong. If we're equal, we should be treated as equal and not as a handicap case who gets a chance to get away with anything because we were hurt. I also think if we're fighting for equality, then that goes for everyone, not just the downtrodden.

I do think that making Warren good is in a way doing what you're complaining about. He was insensitive and cold. Willow may have done wrong things, but she felt guilty about them. She knew they were wrong. I saw no indication that Warren was like that. He just continued to do more without regard.

[tkts]

Very interesting discussion. Not sure if I'll get very far before I have to go to bed, but I'll give it a shot ...

I'd like to look at this from two angles. First, is there a double standard? Second, if there is a double standard, is that double standard inherently wrong?

Example: compare the characters of Anya(nka) and Caleb. Anya initially despises men and has spent over 1000 years inflicting brutal punishments and death on them. Many of her early comments are explicitly misandric and downright frightening (she made a guy cannibalise himself? Jesus Christ!). Yet she is portayed as a likable and comedic character who just didn't know any better, and who receives a nice redemptive arc culminating in a semi-heroic death. Caleb on the other hand, makes similar sexist comments about women and murders a handful of girls, yet is treated with absolute contempt by the characters, writers, and fans. Even his death is a symbolic punishment, being emasculated by a female character.

I'm not sure you can really compare Anya and Caleb, though. A better comparison would be Anya(nka) and Angel(us). Caleb is a human who turns evil of his own free will, whereas Anya and Angel do evil things while in a demon state that their human sides are appalled by. And Anya and Angel both show themselves to be worthy of redemption by the act of seeking redemption in the first place. We never see that kind of remorse from Caleb.

Angel, certainly, is portrayed as sympathetic, and he's male. But then, Angelus never had Caleb's misogyny -- he was more of an equal-opportunity sadist.

Also compare Warren and Willow. Now, most fans hate Warren with a passion and consider him a piece of excrement but I disagree and sympathise with him. Warren is to Willow what Faith is to Buffy; he's basically Willow under different circumstances. They have similar backgrounds (academically gifted but bullied and ignored growing up) and their motives are identical (both want power and respect at all cost). Many of their actions are comparable; Warren had a sincere relationship with Katrina but his insecurities and personality flaws drove her away. The same happened with Willow and Tara. Both characters fixed the problem in the same way; by removing their partners' free will and control, essentially raping them. Warren and Willow were both good people, but their hunger for power corrupted them as they abused their natural talents. But again, whereas Willow was portrayed as sympathetic and redeemed herself, Warren was depicted as scum and murdered in a horrific way as punishment for his misogyny.

I disagree with the parallel on a few points.

First, I don't know that you can say Warren had a sincere relationship with Katrina. Though we don't see them together a lot, "I Was Made to Love You" suggests that he has no problem lying and hiding things from her.

Second, I don't think Willow wants power and respect at all costs, nor do I think the actions of Season 6 Willow can be taken as indicative of her true character. Again, there's a free will question. Warren has free will; Willow is under the influence of supernatural forces beyond her ability to control. And, again, Willow regrets her actions and seeks redemption, but we're never given any reason to think Warren would have done the same, even if he'd lived.

Now don't get me wrong, obviously Anya and Willow are more likable characters than Warren and Caleb, but that's because of how they're portrayed. Do you think the show is being unfair by punishing the male characters, but glorifying the women as "femme fatales" and giving them a chance at redemption?

There are also counterexamples, though: evil female characters who are never redeemed (well, Drusilla's the only one I can think of) and male characters who do get a shot at redemption (Angel, Spike, Andrew).

Also, picture this; had a male character sexually exploited a female the way Buffy exploits Spike, would you still be a fan of that relationship?

The closest parallel there is probably Parker. And, true, Parker seems to be almost universally despised.

And I think you do have a point when you question, for instance, whether a male version of Anyanka would be viewed as sympathetically as Anya is. There probably is a certain double standard at work -- although it's a broader cultural one rather than one that's specifically linked to the show. And the cultural double standard, I would argue, is justified to an extent because of the power differential between men and women that has existed through much of history and exists in many segments of life today. It's the same reason that seeing a man slap a woman makes us cringe, while seeing a woman slap a man might not. For both historical and present-day reasons, the man striking the woman represents a greater threat, and therefore something that's harder to take lightly.

Although I don't think all your analogies work, you're probably right that there is a double standard, to a degree. But it's a double standard in modern American culture, not Buffy specifically, and it's one that I think is to an extent justified.

[zamolxis]

Dec 8, 2009 1:08:43 GMT -5 tkts said:

Also, picture this; had a male character sexually exploited a female the way Buffy exploits Spike, would you still be a fan of that relationship?

The closest parallel there is probably Parker. And, true, Parker seems to be almost universally despised.

There's also Angel with Darla, but in both cases Angel/Buffy get away because Darla and Spike are soulless. I'm not sure about Wesley/Lilah.

[gumgnome]

I think that the comparisons you make are at times compelling and can't simply be willed away by a "free-will" argument. I, for one, think Anya is fully aware of what she is doing as a vengeance demon and is not similar to Angel in this way. However, I'm not sure that it is gender that underlines the point.

Caleb and Warren are clearly introduced as misogynistic characters, and there are comparisons to be made with the main cast. I think the link between Caleb and Anya is weaker than you portray. Anyanka only fulfills the wishes of scorned women - surely the real message here is not that women are right and men wrong, but that humans in general should be careful what they wish for. Honestly, I think if anything, her role could be interpreted as sexist to women, suggesting that they need supernatural assistance in order to get back at unfaithful lovers. Caleb believes that women are corrupters because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden, and hence thinks that women exist purely as an obstacle to the relationship between God and men. His actions arise because of his beliefs, while Anya's beliefs about men by Season 3 are guided by her experience avenging wronged women. Having only a very limited perspective on relationships, it is centuries of experiencing this limited aspect of male-female interactions that gives rise to her opinions of men - opinions that are quickly overturned once she loses her powers. Conversely, Caleb receives his powers precisely because of his opinions of women.

The comparison between Willow and Warren is, perhaps, fairer. They do both crave control over their environments and the people in them. It is perhaps hinted at that the writers are aware of this synchrony in the episode "The Killer In Me". I also think that the argument that Willow is merely under the influence of powerful magic is a cop-out on the part of the writers - these tendencies are present in Willow from the beginning. But, Warren actively seeks control over women (he views and treats all women the same), while Willow seeks control over everybody in the same way and for the same reasons - there's no sexism involved on her part. It is true that Warren also feels belittled by a lot of males around him (the bully, Xander) and asserts his "superiority" over them, but he only does this in front of women. It is clear that he has a cave-man mentality (probably unfair to cave-men) about women. He is unable to connect with them individually and so falls back on well-worn stereotypes that all women want from men is money and protection. The same things cannot be said about Willow and her relationship with men.

[henzINNIT]

It's also worth mentioning that although Buffy/Willow/Anya are sympathetic characters on the show, that doesn't mean their bad actions were portrayed as anything but disgusting. Buffy used Spike, Willow did horirble things to Tara, and Anya did horrible things to men; and it was all clearly messed up.

[wenxina]

A couple of things to address points already made. One, an argument can be made that Anya's actions as Anyanka may actually be worse than that of your average vampire. For one, vampires are soulless, vengeance demons are not (Halfrek's soul was the price for D'Hoffryn's reversal of Anyanka's spell in S7). Now, the shady area of course is whether that soul is a demon soul (kinda like the vampire essence), or it's merely a human soul that's been tainted. If it's the former, it may be easier to explain Anya's switch in personalities after being depowered. If it's the latter, than Anya's lack of remorse until S7 when she actually returned to the fold is kinda creepy.

But... back to your point about Anyanka being conceived as an extreme form of feminism, Paul. I don't think that's necessarily true. If nothing else, Anyanka's retribution on men pretty much illustrates that evil resides on both sides. Her MO was vengeance, which is not a feminist quality at all, but rather a tendency of those who have been scorned in one way or another. However, if one were to argue that Anyanka was the original extreme feminist, perhaps then the point that Joss tried to make with that creation is that feminism should NOT be extreme, and that as you said, equality means just that, equal treatment, and not overcompensation.
The only problem with arguing overcompensation at times is that it's because people don't like changes to the status quo. Take language for example. The recent gender-neutralizing attempts (e.g. "pothole" instead of "manhole", "flight attendant" instead of "flight steward/stewardess", "humankind" instead of "mankind", etc) rub people the wrong way some, because it does seem to be overcompensating on some level. But then again, is it really overcompensating to allow women into the daily vernacular of the English language? Depending on where you stand on the issue, points can be made either way.

Another thing to add is that while both Willow and Warren did rape Tara and Katrina, respectively, Their motives were very different. The agenda was the same; e.g. to exert their will over others, but the motives were different. Willow wanted to make things right, because she loved Tara. It was an ill-advised attempt, but the motive was love. Warren on the other hand, did it because he wanted Katrina, even though she wanted nothing to do with him. And he was going to hand her over to the other two geeks after he was done. Not saying that one was better than the other, just that one is easily more sympathetic than the other.

[Paul]

First thanks to everyone who's contributed to this discussion, it's interesting to hear everyone's thoughts.

Dec 8, 2009 1:08:43 GMT -5 tkts said:

I disagree with the parallel on a few points.

First, I don't know that you can say Warren had a sincere relationship with Katrina. Though we don't see them together a lot, "I Was Made to Love You" suggests that he has no problem lying and hiding things from her.

Second, I don't think Willow wants power and respect at all costs, nor do I think the actions of Season 6 Willow can be taken as indicative of her true character. Again, there's a free will question. Warren has free will; Willow is under the influence of supernatural forces beyond her ability to control. And, again, Willow regrets her actions and seeks redemption, but we're never given any reason to think Warren would have done the same, even if he'd lived.

Warren's dialogue in "I Was Made to Love You" indicates that his relationship with Katrina was sincere. "Then something happened. Katrina was in my engineering seminar, and she was really funny and cool. You know, she was always givin' me a hard time, real ... unpredictable. She builds these little model monorails that run with magnets, and ... Anyway. I fell in love with Katrina." The fact that Warren falls in love with fiesty Katrina, rather than the submissive April, shows that he's not that misogynistic. He loves and respects Katrina for her strength. I hate how so many people forget that Warren was originally a very human, sympathetic character. Even Willow and Tara felt sorry for him. I think Warren is also similar to Faith in that he was a vulnerable, damaged person who kind of spiraled down an evil path.

Willow does want power and respect at all costs, that was her main character trait as far back as the high school seasons. Saying that Willow can't be held responsible for her actions because "it was the magic" is a pathetic cop-out. I never liked that the writers made that excuse, it felt like a safety net so that Willow's innocence could be preserved. Her behaviour as early as season 3 foreshadowed her actions in season 6. Also, Willow didn't show any regret before "Wrecked". She showed zero guilt over erasing Tara's memory and even repeated the offense after being caught.

Dec 8, 2009 5:43:30 GMT -5 gumgnome said:

I think the link between Caleb and Anya is weaker than you portray.

The Anya/Caleb comparison is a loose one, I admit. It basically comes down to: female character who hates men = lovable comic relief. Male character who hates women = despised villain. They don't have much more in common than that, but I still think it's interesting to compare them. As I said before, if their genders were reversed, would you still feel the same way about them?

Dec 8, 2009 6:53:22 GMT -5 henzINNIT said:

It's also worth mentioning that although Buffy/Willow/Anya are sympathetic characters on the show, that doesn't mean their bad actions were portrayed as anything but disgusting. Buffy used Spike, Willow did horirble things to Tara, and Anya did horrible things to men; and it was all clearly messed up.

I agree, with the exception of Anya. Anya was never really villified by the Scoobies for her past, which was massively hypocritical based on their treatment of Spike and Angel. The "horrible things" that Anya did are mostly played for laughs in the show... imagine a male character making casual comments about punishing women through cannibalism and torture, wouldn't be so funny would it?

Dec 8, 2009 9:54:13 GMT -5 wenxina said:

One, an argument can be made that Anya's actions as Anyanka may actually be worse than that of your average vampire. For one, vampires are soulless, vengeance demons are not (Halfrek's soul was the price for D'Hoffryn's reversal of Anyanka's spell in S7). Now, the shady area of course is whether that soul is a demon soul (kinda like the vampire essence), or it's merely a human soul that's been tainted. If it's the former, it may be easier to explain Anya's switch in personalities after being depowered. If it's the latter, than Anya's lack of remorse until S7 when she actually returned to the fold is kinda creepy.

I agree, I hold Anya 100% responsible for what Anyanka did. D'Hoffryn found women already capable of vengeance and gave them supernatural powers, but he didn't change them on a moral level like a vampire.

Dec 8, 2009 9:54:13 GMT -5 wenxina said:

But... back to your point about Anyanka being conceived as an extreme form of feminism, Paul. I don't think that's necessarily true.

I think it was one of the show writers that made that point initially, though I can't remember the source. I'm not saying Anya's actions are a fair or accurate representation of feminism, and I take back my initial sentence where I mention feminism, it was poorly worded. I just meant that it's more socially acceptable for women to mistreat men than vice versa. Take something like Sex and the City, which is often praised as being feminist and empowering. If there was a show about four men who objectify women and talk about shagging them all the time, it would be criticised for being chauvanistic. In fact, those same "feminists" who like SatC would probably be it's biggest critics.

Wenxina, you make an interesting point that if Anya does represent a warped version of feminism, then Joss is using her to make a point about that being unacceptable. However, I don't think that point really comes across because Anya is never really punished for her actions. The closest time she does is in "Hell's Bells", where Stewart Burns ruins her wedding. But even then, Buffy kills Stewart (he used to be a human and didn't hurt anyone that we know of!) and Anya is portrayed as a victim. What the hell? This poor guy cheats on his wife/girlfriend and gets turned into a demon, sent to hell dimension and tortured, and then killed. But Anya is the victim? Something's not right there. Especially compared to the level of punishment Warren and Caleb receive.

[Saturn 5]

I think the series should be pro-women without being anti-men (misandry). CC comes closest to it, making man anti male remarks over the years especially when Angel knocks Darla up.

Or as Tara puts it all about the girl/girl action. As for the Buffy/Spike relationship if the gender roles were reversed well, it's not so much the male/female thing as the evil/not evil that's important. I've made the point before though, think about Buffy and Parker if those gender roles were reversed

[wenxina]

Dec 8, 2009 14:09:31 GMT -5 Paul said:

Take something like Sex and the City, which is often praised as being feminist and empowering. If there was a show about four men who objectify women and talk about shagging them all the time, it would be criticised for being chauvanistic. In fact, those same "feminists" who like SatC would probably be it's biggest critics.

I don't watch it, so I can't be sure (okay, I watched one ep), but isn't that kind of what happens in Mad Men? Sex and the City isn't all about objectifying men, though. In fact, the only one who really uses men most of the time is Samantha, and even she kinda stops doing that in the end. I'm still not sure how I feel about having all the female leads settle down at the end of the show, though... but I guess that's kinda rectified in the movie.

[gumgnome]

Dec 8, 2009 14:09:31 GMT -5 Paul said:

The Anya/Caleb comparison is a loose one, I admit. It basically comes down to: female character who hates men = lovable comic relief. Male character who hates women = despised villain. They don't have much more in common than that, but I still think it's interesting to compare them. As I said before, if their genders were reversed, would you still feel the same way about them?

The thing is - you can't reverse those roles. Christianity (and all of the most popular institutionalised superstitions) are inherently sexist. The fact of the matter is that Joss can create a woman-hating priest who blames women for the fall of man because the Bible effectively does blame women for the fall of man (and hence, childbirth is painful - what a nice book). To reverse the role you would have to imagine a world in which women weren't treated as slightly less valuable than a beast of burden for most of the formative years of civilisation.

[Paul]

Dec 8, 2009 15:03:31 GMT -5 wenxina said:

Dec 8, 2009 14:09:31 GMT -5 Paul said:

Take something like Sex and the City, which is often praised as being feminist and empowering. If there was a show about four men who objectify women and talk about shagging them all the time, it would be criticised for being chauvanistic. In fact, those same "feminists" who like SatC would probably be it's biggest critics.

I don't watch it, so I can't be sure (okay, I watched one ep), but isn't that kind of what happens in Mad Men? Sex and the City isn't all about objectifying men, though. In fact, the only one who really uses men most of the time is Samantha, and even she kinda stops doing that in the end. I'm still not sure how I feel about having all the female leads settle down at the end of the show, though... but I guess that's kinda rectified in the movie.

Never heard of Mad Men so I can't comment. SatC does objectify men... a lot actually. There's loads of stories, especially in the early seasons, where the women date men for an episode, then dump him for some superficial flaw.

I don't have a problem with SatC, I like the show (although I think it's shallow nonsense) but I think it's hypocritcal to say that women sleeping around is "empowering" but men doing it is misogynistic. I have friends who won't watch Bond movies because they're sexist but they like SatC. Makes no sense to me.

One thing I will praise SatC for is making it's main character a cheat. It would have been easy for that show to portray men as cheating bastards, so to tell a story where Carrie has an affair behind Aidan's back, but still keep her sympathetic, was a nice way of showing that women are just as fallible as men.

Dec 8, 2009 15:39:49 GMT -5 gumgnome said:

Dec 8, 2009 14:09:31 GMT -5 Paul said:

The Anya/Caleb comparison is a loose one, I admit. It basically comes down to: female character who hates men = lovable comic relief. Male character who hates women = despised villain. They don't have much more in common than that, but I still think it's interesting to compare them. As I said before, if their genders were reversed, would you still feel the same way about them?

The thing is - you can't reverse those roles. Christianity (and all of the most popular institutionalised superstitions) are inherently sexist. The fact of the matter is that Joss can create a woman-hating priest who blames women for the fall of man because the Bible effectively does blame women for the fall of man (and hence, childbirth is painful - what a nice book). To reverse the role you would have to imagine a world in which women weren't treated as slightly less valuable than a beast of burden for most of the formative years of civilisation.

Excellent point.

[wenxina]

Dec 8, 2009 15:55:43 GMT -5 Paul said:

I don't have a problem with SatC, I like the show (although I think it's shallow nonsense) but I think it's hypocritcal to say that women sleeping around is "empowering" but men doing it is misogynistic. I have friends who won't watch Bond movies because they're sexist but they like SatC. Makes no sense to me.

A men sleeping around doesn't equal misogyny. That's just promiscuity. The attitude which is frequently associated with men who think they're the cat's pajamas is however, misogynistic. However, in the spirit of equality, which is what you're arguing for here, if men are allowed to dump women for any flaw at all, the same must be allowed for a woman. That's the attitude that's taken here.
Bond movies are another issue altogether. It's not so much what Bond does or doesn't do with women, but rather how women are portrayed in general. They're either the hot girl who inevitably becomes the damsel in distress to Bond's pillaging lothario, or they're the villainess who usually tries seducing Bond, but fail at the end. In other words, they perpetuate the double Mary paradigm; the virgin (Madonna) and the whore.

[Saturn 5]

The Bond of the books is an utter misogynist, women were for 'recreation'. The Bond in the movies is softened a great deal especially Roger. Interesting that Connery who could be a lot rougher with his girls is Warren's favourite?

[Paul]

Dec 8, 2009 16:44:57 GMT -5 wenxina said:

A men sleeping around doesn't equal misogyny. That's just promiscuity. The attitude which is frequently associated with men who think they're the cat's pajamas is however, misogynistic. However, in the spirit of equality, which is what you're arguing for here, if men are allowed to dump women for any flaw at all, the same must be allowed for a woman. That's the attitude that's taken here.
Bond movies are another issue altogether. It's not so much what Bond does or doesn't do with women, but rather how women are portrayed in general. They're either the hot girl who inevitably becomes the damsel in distress to Bond's pillaging lothario, or they're the villainess who usually tries seducing Bond, but fail at the end. In other words, they perpetuate the double Mary paradigm; the virgin (Madonna) and the whore.

People can sleep around and dump people and do what they want, I don't care. It's when it's acceptable for one gender to do something, but not the other, that I get pissed off.

I don't think either SatC or the Bond films are particularly sexist... whatever sexism is there is light-hearted. But some people praise one and criticise the other for the same thing, which is hypocritical IMO.

I should clarify that I don't think there's any real misandry at the heart of Buffy, but it does fall prey to some subtle double standards that already exist in society.

Dec 8, 2009 16:48:58 GMT -5 Saturn 5 said:

The Bond of the books is an utter misogynist, women were for 'recreation'. The Bond in the movies is softened a great deal especially Roger. Interesting that Connery who could be a lot rougher with his girls is Warren's favourite?

I think Flemming's Bond is extremely homophobic too. He's just not a very nice person.

[wenxina]

Dec 8, 2009 17:40:45 GMT -5 Paul said:

I think Flemming's Bond is extremely homophobic too. He's just not a very nice person.

Product of the times? There are plenty of children's books that have been white-washed to be more acceptable today. I'll cite Enid Blyton's books as an example. I used to own tons of her books (not even exaggerating there), and some of them contained certain things that are probably not acceptable by today's standards... Pretty sure one of the Famous Five books had the kids joking about a friend's name, and how they nicknamed him "Sooty". This friend's last name happened to be Noir, Latin for "black", and I'm sure even if it wasn't explicitly stated, the kid was black. Not sure if that's still around in recent publications... I've tried looking for those books at bookstores to see, but I guess they're just not popular in the US. Pfft. But hell, the last time I saw Blyton's books, they had changed the name "Fanny" to something else... which I thought was hilarious. And since Fanny was a name that Blyton used quite frequently, many of these girls now have some other name.

[deathisyourgift]

discrimination against men by women is just feminism and somehow acceptable

This is an incorrect assumption.
I have done a lot of research on feminism and written a few papers on feminist art therapy, and the understanding of feminism that I have learned is a desire to create equality for not just women, but for people of all genders, sexual orientations, races, ethnicities, religions, and so on.
Lots of people associate feminism with radical feminist actions, such as bra burning and man-hating, and this is unfair. It is the same as assuming that all pacifists go on hunger strikes like Ghandi, or that all environmentalists chain themselves to trees in protest, or that all men discriminate women.
I am a feminist, and all that means to me is that I strive to treat everyone I encounter with equal and fair regard, in the pursuit of equality.

I think in the Buffyverse, many of the male figures become villain-ish. However, I have often felt that the creators/writers do try to create equally evil female villains for Buffy, Angel, the Serenity crew, and even the Dollhouse gang to fight against. I do have to agree with you that most of the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer focuses on "women=awesome, men=evil!", but this is because of the melodramatic and over-the-top story lines, which often create salacious metaphors to tell the story.

I hope this helps clear up some stuff..for everyone.