tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 8, 2009 19:31:23 GMT -5
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. His feelings for Katrina may have been sincere, but he had absolutely no problem lying and hiding things from her, so I don't think the relationship can be characterized as sincere. And as soon as the April thing starts coming to light, he gets controlling and dismissive. ("Trina, please be quiet. This is important. Wait in the kitchen.") Even though he fell for the independent Katrina instead of the submissive sexbot, he seems to be incapable of dealing with her independent nature as soon as any real conflict arises, and lo and behold, the next time we see him with Katrina, he's found a way to make her his submissive sex slave. I think control is a big issue for Willow, but it's mostly control over herself and her immediate environment. She's not portrayed as someone who likes to control others, but rather as someone who keeps herself very disciplined and tightly wound. |
|
tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 8, 2009 19:37:21 GMT -5
I've made the point before though, think about Buffy and Parker if those gender roles were reversed The closest analogy to Buffy and Parker is probably Xander and Faith. It's not a perfect analogy, because I think Buffy was more emotionally invested in Parker than Xander was in Faith, but Faith's and Parker's attitudes toward sex are fairly similar. Both like the conquest; both are casually dismissive of the people they sleep with. |
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Dec 8, 2009 20:24:04 GMT -5
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. "Noir" is not Latin but French... :-) |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Dec 8, 2009 20:35:05 GMT -5
You're right... I forgot that the Latin word for "black" sounds a little closer to the "n" word.  |
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Dec 8, 2009 21:18:19 GMT -5
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. His feelings for Katrina may have been sincere, but he had absolutely no problem lying and hiding things from her, so I don't think the relationship can be characterized as sincere. And as soon as the April thing starts coming to light, he gets controlling and dismissive. ("Trina, please be quiet. This is important. Wait in the kitchen.") Even though he fell for the independent Katrina instead of the submissive sexbot, he seems to be incapable of dealing with her independent nature as soon as any real conflict arises, and lo and behold, the next time we see him with Katrina, he's found a way to make her his submissive sex slave. Ah, but you could say the same of Willow, who erases Tara's memories of arguments and ignores her concerns about her magic abuse. That's more "controlling and dismissive" than Warren initially was. To this day, she's keeping secrets from Kennedy in Season Eight. Also, Tara lied to Willow throughout season four by not admitting to being a demon and went to such effort to hide it that she almost got the Scoobies killed. So if lies and secrets make a relationship insincere, then Willow and Tara are no better than Warren and Katrina. Also, Warren didn't want to make Katrina a submissive sex slave. In "Dead Things", he tries to work things out just by talking to her (using sleazy one-liners, admittedly). He only uses the cerebral dampener on her when she rejects him and insults him quite harshly. Obviously, I'm not saying he was right to do so, but it's not as black and white as "Warren is evil". 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. I think control is a big issue for Willow, but it's mostly control over herself and her immediate environment. She's not portrayed as someone who likes to control others, but rather as someone who keeps herself very disciplined and tightly wound. Well, that's your interpretation. I see Willow as someone who spent her entire life feeling weak and being ignored (Her first line to Buffy is "Uh, did you want me to move?"), and who grows to thrive on feeling powerful (it's no coincidence that her vampire-self is a dominatrix). Across the seasons she gains more power and self-respect, and craves more. In season one, she's happy to be a "Slayerette", but by season four resents being a "sidekick", and by season five considers herself more powerful than Buffy. By season six, she's downright egotistical (In "After Life", she's annoyed that Buffy doesn't thank her for resurrecting her... she wants acknowledgement of her ability) and even Giles labels her "arrogant". I love the scene where she threatens Giles, we get a real glimpse of her true colours. You're right in saying that control is important to Willow, but that ties into her ego. She wants power over everything. In "Lovers Walk", she tries to perform a de-lusting spell without consulting Xander; she's happy to magic away her friend's feelings. In "Something Blue", she doesn't think she should have to deal with pain and uses magic to get rid of it. She doesn't deal with Buffy's death, just recklessly brings her back to life, and when she learns of the consequences, tries to erase Buffy's feelings. I've mentioned the Tara mind-wipe several times. Willow has no respect for other people and their rights, she believes that she is entitled to control them so long as it's "for the best". As for being disciplined... that's a joke. Was she disciplined in "Smashed" when she and Amy performed random and dangerous magic on other people for their own amusement? Tara is disciplined, she has respect for boundaries, especially after "Family". (Btw, this post probably sounds like I hate Willow but I don't. She's one of my favourite characters, but I love what a real bitch she is under all the cutesy smiling.) |
|
tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 9, 2009 1:22:58 GMT -5
We're in danger of heading into serious Quote Pyramid territory, so I'll do without the quotes this time ...
Interesting point about Willow and Tara. I'd never thought about Tara's deception in S4 and Willow's lies about her magic in those terms ... probably in part because the relationship was portrayed so sympathetically in general, which I guess backs up your double standard argument.
A few counterpoints about Willow:
It's true that she resents being seen as the weak, timid one -- or as "Old Reliable" -- and it probably is significant that her vampire self is a dominatrix. However, it's also worth noting that she seems genuinely horrified by her vampire self.
And I don't see her statement about Buffy not thanking her as desire for acknowledgment of her ability. She spent months pouring herself into the effort to bring Buffy back, and the process was incredibly hard for her ... I think her response, which she seems almost ashamed of, is very human. And the fact that she seems ashamed of her own reaction indicates that she hasn't lost touch.
I do think it's reasonable to call her disciplined by character, despite what happens in Season 6. Up until then, she's very tightly controlled. Her loss of control is almost the exception that proves the rule, and the stark contrast is noted in dialogue:
|
|
Saturn 5
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 638
|
Post by Saturn 5 on Dec 9, 2009 5:01:10 GMT -5
Totally right about Bond, racist, sexist and homophobic (especially Goldfinger).
But right about Warren too, he isn't this woman hating monster from the start, he get's worse and worse. But he loves Katrina, just can't communicate with her effectively. He does feel guilt about her or he wouldn't bite at Jonathon's needling so avidly
|
|
|
|
Post by mergedloki on Dec 10, 2009 1:13:00 GMT -5
It's not just buffy. It's the world in general. and please im NOT a misogynist or anything but North American values are (or at least the tv'movie values that hollywood thinks of), for all intents and purposes, feminist values. Like take some talk show... if 'speaker of the day' says 'women are smart than men' everybody applauds and says 'yep thats right' if some guy says 'men are smarter than women' he'd be booed off stage and run out of town. and think of basically EVERY SINGLE sitcom 'comedy' the wife is some good looking women and the husband is a dumb slob who's lucky as hell to have landed her. so it's not the buffyverse or anything like that. Just... society in general is to blame. IMO. disclaimer: I'm an equalist in the truest sense of the word. I think genders are 100% equal and should be treated that way. (never gonna happen in the world we live in but ti's a nice thought isn't it folks?  ) |
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Dec 10, 2009 4:37:47 GMT -5
and think of basically EVERY SINGLE sitcom 'comedy' the wife is some good looking women and the husband is a dumb slob who's lucky as hell to have landed her. But doesn't this just suggest that we, as an audience, will only accept a good looking woman on our shows? |
|
The Night Lord
Wise-cracking Sidekick
The Long Kiss Goodnight
There can be no love. Only pain exists[Mo0:1]
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by The Night Lord on Dec 11, 2009 7:20:22 GMT -5
I think I'm going with Paul's views on this one. I'm starting to see double standards happening in Buffy, but not just there, in real life as well, like for example, it seems to be completely fine for a woman to hit a guy, but if a guy hits a woman, he's instantly demonised, which is something I'll never understand. But back to the topic. Yes, I am seeing double standards happening in Buffy, which is what I'll just put down as Joss's issues
|
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Dec 11, 2009 7:59:44 GMT -5
I don't understand - men hitting women is out of order because men have on average more testosterone in their bodies and build muscle more easily to increase physical strength. Men, on average, are stronger than women, making it taboo for men to strike women. Agreeing to equal rights for men and women doesn't mean making the statement that men and women are physically equal. For instance, would anybody here advocate having mixed sex sporting events for e.g. the Olympics? I would say not because of the differences in hormones mentioned above, and also other physiological differences resulting from sexual selection such as the flaring of the iliac crest in the female pelvis - very necessary during childbirth, but producing a negative impact on bipedal locomotion, giving men an advantage during sprinting.
Equality for the sexes should be about embracing the fact that men and women deserve equal rights, but should never descend into a denial of the physical differences that exist between the sexes due to different roles in reproduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on Dec 11, 2009 14:44:56 GMT -5
Equality for the sexes should be about embracing the fact that men and women deserve equal rights, but should never descend into a denial of the physical differences that exist between the sexes due to different roles in reproduction. There is no denial that men on average are stronger and more physically capable than women. The largest example off the top of my head is the draft. Only high school boys are made to register, something I find completely anti-feminist. Yeah, you heard it. Feminism is for the equal treatment of both sexes. I think to a point you do have to account for physical ability, but this should be blind to gender as a whole. An example of this upheld in the federal legislature is assault and battery. It's illegal, regardless of gender. Now, back to the topic at hand: Whether Joss Whedon's works (BTVS in particular) is feminism--pro-equality of the sexes and other demographics--or simply pro-female to a point that it is misandrous and counter to the feminist movement. In my personal opinion, on the whole, Joss likes to use males and females in both positions of good and evil, however it is usually a male big-bad and a female heroine. This goes back to Joss' original concept of the show: a blond girl being stalked in a dark alley by a vampire, only to have the blond girl fight and kill the vampire. Very-pro female. But is it Misandry? I have to ponder this further, but my initial answer is no. The show is there to celebrate women and female power, but the lack of celebration of male power doesn't automatically equal misandry. Though a common theme of male power = evil badness cannot be disputed, there have been several examples of powerful evil females on Joss' shows as well. |
|
tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 11, 2009 18:56:59 GMT -5
In my personal opinion, on the whole, Joss likes to use males and females in both positions of good and evil, however it is usually a male big-bad and a female heroine. This goes back to Joss' original concept of the show: a blond girl being stalked in a dark alley by a vampire, only to have the blond girl fight and kill the vampire. Very-pro female. But is it Misandry? Flip side: It's not always male villain vs. female heroine. The show subverts stereotypes and expectations in a wider variety of ways. For example, although the original concept was to turn the pretty-blonde-girl-attacked-by-monster-in-an-alley cliche around, the entire series is kicked off with a different subversion -- the pretty blonde girl (Darla) turns out to be the villain and the guy turns out to be her victim. |
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Dec 11, 2009 20:19:28 GMT -5
It's not just buffy. It's the world in general. and please im NOT a misogynist or anything but North American values are (or at least the tv'movie values that hollywood thinks of), for all intents and purposes, feminist values. Like take some talk show... if 'speaker of the day' says 'women are smart than men' everybody applauds and says 'yep thats right' if some guy says 'men are smarter than women' he'd be booed off stage and run out of town. and think of basically EVERY SINGLE sitcom 'comedy' the wife is some good looking women and the husband is a dumb slob who's lucky as hell to have landed her. so it's not the buffyverse or anything like that. Just... society in general is to blame. IMO. disclaimer: I'm an equalist in the truest sense of the word. I think genders are 100% equal and should be treated that way. (never gonna happen in the world we live in but ti's a nice thought isn't it folks? ) Karma for you! But doesn't this just suggest that we, as an audience, will only accept a good looking woman on our shows? Yeah, but can you imagine a show where the husband is handsome, smart and succussful, and the women is a fat loser who gets constantly ridiculed? I'm trying to think of an example, but I can't because it would probably be labeled domestic abuse or something. I don't understand - men hitting women is out of order because men have on average more testosterone in their bodies and build muscle more easily to increase physical strength. Men, on average, are stronger than women, making it taboo for men to strike women. Agreeing to equal rights for men and women doesn't mean making the statement that men and women are physically equal. For instance, would anybody here advocate having mixed sex sporting events for e.g. the Olympics? I would say not because of the differences in hormones mentioned above, and also other physiological differences resulting from sexual selection such as the flaring of the iliac crest in the female pelvis - very necessary during childbirth, but producing a negative impact on bipedal locomotion, giving men an advantage during sprinting. Equality for the sexes should be about embracing the fact that men and women deserve equal rights, but should never descend into a denial of the physical differences that exist between the sexes due to different roles in reproduction. Men may be physically stronger than women, but that doesn't mean women are helpless lil' kittens. Search Goggle and you'll see that hundreds of thousands of men are physically and psychologically abused by women. But nobody cares about them, do they? Violence against women by men is constantly depicted in our culture, but "battered husbands" don't have much of a voice, do they? Because men are abusive cavemen and women are helpless damsels, right? (I'm being sarcastic, I know you don't mean that.) " Men hitting women is out of order". You say that like it's okay for women to hit men. Obviously, men hitting women is out of order, any person being hitting someone who can't defend themselves - regardless of gender - is out of order. Let me point you to the episode "Sanctuary", and my least favourite Buffy (the character) moment ever in the history of the Buffyverse: Faith goes up the stairs and Buffy moves to stop her.
Buffy: "Don't you move a..."
Angel catches her arm and she turns to punch him full in the face. She hauls back to hit him again, but Angel blocks her fist and hits her across the face in return.
Angel steps back as Buffy stares at him with a hand over her mouth.
Angel: "I'm sorry. - I'm sorry."
Buffy: "You hit me."
Angel: "Not to go all schoolyard on you, but you hit me first. In case you've forgotten - you're a little bit stronger than I am." Who the %$*& does Buffy think she is? She's supposed to be the embodiment of female strength empowerment, but as soon as Angel smacks her she's a helpless victim? It's okay for her to beat on Angel but not vice versa? And Angel apologises for this? WTH??? He's right, she is stronger than him and her outrage at him defending himself against her abuse is absolutely disgusting in my eyes. I know there's more to it than that - Buffy was understandably upset with Faith and, by association, Angel - but that is no excuse for what is basically domestic violence. Buffy's overall attitude in this episode is by far the time when I have the least respect for the character; I love seeing Angel put her in her place and the fact that he goes crawling for forgiveness in "The Yoko Factor" makes me sick. Now, back to the topic at hand: Whether Joss Whedon's works (BTVS in particular) is feminism--pro-equality of the sexes and other demographics--or simply pro-female to a point that it is misandrous and counter to the feminist movement. In my personal opinion, on the whole, Joss likes to use males and females in both positions of good and evil, however it is usually a male big-bad and a female heroine. This goes back to Joss' original concept of the show: a blond girl being stalked in a dark alley by a vampire, only to have the blond girl fight and kill the vampire. Very-pro female. But is it Misandry? I have to ponder this further, but my initial answer is no. The show is there to celebrate women and female power, but the lack of celebration of male power doesn't automatically equal misandry. Though a common theme of male power = evil badness cannot be disputed, there have been several examples of powerful evil females on Joss' shows as well. I agree with you, I don't think Joss or Buffy are misandric (is that the right variation of that word?). Positive male characters like Xander, Giles, etc show that. But I do think there are examples of common prejudice in the series which make for interesting discussion. |
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Dec 13, 2009 5:03:38 GMT -5
Yeah, but can you imagine a show where the husband is handsome, smart and succussful, and the women is a fat loser who gets constantly ridiculed? I'm trying to think of an example, but I can't because it would probably be labeled domestic abuse or something. Men may be physically stronger than women, but that doesn't mean women are helpless lil' kittens. Search Goggle and you'll see that hundreds of thousands of men are physically and psychologically abused by women. But nobody cares about them, do they? Violence against women by men is constantly depicted in our culture, but "battered husbands" don't have much of a voice, do they? Because men are abusive cavemen and women are helpless damsels, right? (I'm being sarcastic, I know you don't mean that.) To the first point, you're right that there aren't many shows like that, but I still wonder how much of that is due to the huge pressure to satisfy the audience's demand for uber-attractive women on TV. Even in shows where the female protagonist is supposed to be uninteresting or ugly (e.g. "Ugly Betty") the producers still pick someone who conforms to typical standards of beauty and merely mask it with glasses, unfashionable hair-styles etc. There is certainly the perception of a desire on the part of the audience (whether that desire really exists or not) for attractive women only. To your second point, of course you're right that physical abuse by women on men does occur, but the generalisation that physical abuse typically goes the other way is sadly due to an overwhelming larger proportion of attacks on women by men. |
|
tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 13, 2009 16:47:28 GMT -5
To the first point, you're right that there aren't many shows like that, but I still wonder how much of that is due to the huge pressure to satisfy the audience's demand for uber-attractive women on TV. Even in shows where the female protagonist is supposed to be uninteresting or ugly (e.g. "Ugly Betty") the producers still pick someone who conforms to typical standards of beauty and merely mask it with glasses, unfashionable hair-styles etc. There is certainly the perception of a desire on the part of the audience (whether that desire really exists or not) for attractive women only. That's not limited to women, though. "Hollywood Homely" applies pretty much across the casting spectrum. I mean, did anyone really go to a school where the dorky, unpopular guys looked like Nicholas Brendon? Even the three nerds from Season 6 are played by perfectly good-looking actors. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on Dec 14, 2009 16:29:26 GMT -5
In my personal opinion, on the whole, Joss likes to use males and females in both positions of good and evil, however it is usually a male big-bad and a female heroine. This goes back to Joss' original concept of the show: a blond girl being stalked in a dark alley by a vampire, only to have the blond girl fight and kill the vampire. Very-pro female. But is it Misandry? Flip side: It's not always male villain vs. female heroine. The show subverts stereotypes and expectations in a wider variety of ways. For example, although the original concept was to turn the pretty-blonde-girl-attacked-by-monster-in-an-alley cliche around, the entire series is kicked off with a different subversion -- the pretty blonde girl (Darla) turns out to be the villain and the guy turns out to be her victim. Yes, I said that it isn't always male big bads, however they are majorally male. |
|
|
|
Post by buffyfan21 on Dec 14, 2009 18:32:20 GMT -5
I just have to say that I think what separates Caleb/Warren from Willow/Anya is the fact that both Willow and Anya eventually showed remorse for their wrong doings. We never saw any remorse from Caleb or Warren. So I think the real argument here is not gender based, but whether or not the person showed remorse and a desire for redemption. Yes, Willow and Warren both did some pretty horrible things, no argument there, but imo, the fact that Willow felt guilt about her transgressions means she is nothing like Warren. Warren, by my estimation, was nothing but a sociopathic character with no sense of right and wrong, and no moral compass whatsoever. Warren was always using people for the betterment of himself. And my dislike of Warren has nothing to do with his male gender, that makes little difference to me in my dislike of him. Had there been a female character with the same personality traits of Warren, I can honestly say I would dislike her just as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightandmagic on Dec 16, 2009 5:23:03 GMT -5
Browsed through the posts, and thought I'd share my opinions. They're probably a bit haphazard and all over the place, it's late, and I'm responding to tons of points.
First thing that came into my mind is that I think it's totally unfair to give the Buffy/Spike relationship circa season 6 as an example of bias in gender, citing that only Buffy sexually exploited Spike. She did. Spike exploited her too. She used him to feel something, he used her knowing full well she was depressed, not in her regular frame of mind, hell, slightly suicidal, and that she wouldn't have entered into said relationship otherwise. They used each other, which is what made their relationship so painful to watch.
Another random thought is someone mentioned Mad Men as men taking advantage of women and in that sense, a counterpoint to Sex and the City. And in the show they do. But you can't criticize the show for that aspect, it's a period piece, men in that time period did take advantage of women regularly. What should be praised is that multiple female characters in the show still manage to come into their own and prove to be equal of their male counterparts, specifically, Peggy Olson and Joan Holloway.
Another thought is that, oh my god, yes, there is definitely a double standard. By far the most annoying/aggravating of all of these is that of rape as a gag. In media all the time whenever a man is forced into sex it's always used as a joke, cause you know, men want sex all the time even if it is forced on them. The best example of this is from the Wedding Crashers, granted, I liked the movie, but when Vince Vaughan's character is essentially raped by a girl he slept with one time, and it's used as a joke, it bothers me so much. If it had been the other way around people would have raised a shit storm.
In terms of Buffy, there definitely is some bias. I do think Buffy is huge empowering for women, and as a feminist, I'm grateful for that aspect of it. They ultimately always do what they feel is best for them. On the other hand, there is a similar treatment of violence against men treated as a joke. Best example, the episode First Date. Xander (as much as I generally dislike the character) has been constantly been abused by women, the teacher in season one, and in this instance, ashanti as some demon cat thing. Instead of the characters being seriously concerned for his well being, they make jokes. If it happened to Willow, the same reactions would not occur.
I'll end this directionless and kind of random post now. Hope it made some semblance of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisyearsgirl91 on Dec 16, 2009 16:24:27 GMT -5
At least Buffy has men who can kick ass, unlike most male-centric shows that have women always needing men to rescue them.
|
|
