posted
A few other thoughts have occurred to me in the light of day:
1. It's unfair to categorize Buffy as a feminist show or even a failed feminist show. I don't think it was ever intended as such. (I have not read an interview with Joss Whedon, so I could be wrong.) Just because the protagonist is an attractive high school girl does not mean that the show was meant to make a statement about women in general.
2. Of course, since TV is a mass market media, people are going to read into the show a statement about something. Had Buffy been a boy, fans might have complained that the show did not depict a powerful woman. When fans lionize the show for being pro-feminist, I think it says more about the fans and their expectations than it does about the show itself.
3. If one is looking for more realistic role models, one won't find them on mainstream TV or in Marvel and DC, for that matter. The gatekeepers are interested in peddling fantasy, not reality. (Returning to my point about Giles and Xander, notice how they were still "traditionally" attractive even though they were geeks. A more "realistic" depiction might have a balding Giles and a zit-faced Xander.)
4. People do tend to read into the show what they see from their own experiences. One of my favorite sitcoms of all time is M*A*S*H because of its anti-war message among other reasons. Yet I knew a woman from Korea who disliked the show because of its depiction of Koreans. Watching the show now, I see her point: Koreans are often portrayed as stereotypes. (But, to be fair, the show also stereotyped Army officers, surgeons, enlisted men, and everyone else.)
5. No show is perfect. A fair assessment comes from watching what is there and weighing the good against the bad, not from reacting to other fans' reactions of the show.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cleome: [qb] ...I hadn't thought of Peter Parker as being an "average" or "unattractive" man. During the Ditko era, he was certainly depicted as being weaker and bespectacled, but by the '70s (when I encountered him), he no longer wore glasses and was protrayed as no different than any other run-of-the-mill male hero.
In the 1970s, I remember an interview with Stan Lee in which he said that often artists had to be reminded to make Parker look "normal. Not like a movie star." IOW, not like the Western ideal of masculinity.
quote:You could be right about male heroes being portrayed as having wider range of acceptable physical features than females. However, even when an older male is featured in a movie (e.g., Michael Douglas) and paired with a younger woman, he's usually someone who was already considered attractive to begin with.
If by "attractive," you mean, "conventionally handsome" then I disagree with this entirely. There's simply a much wider variance of age, figures, and types of features allowed in entertainment for men than for women who are to be considered protagonists and "attractive" to viewers, readers and advertisers. Period. George Clooney is a star who has long been paired with beautiful younger women in his movies. So is Bill Murray. If you could find me two well-known Hollywood actresses who not only land the variety of roles that both these actors do and also differ from one another as much in appearance as do Clooney and Murray, I'd be impressed.
quote:Returning to Buffy, I'm still struck by the idea that it was the women who had the powers in the show and not the men. The show may fall far short of making a feminist statement, but I think it was quite revolutionary in its own way.
The real message isn't that "women have power," though. The real message is that very young, very beautiful, very thin women have power. All others are invisible. Unfortunately that makes the idea of "empowerment" for women much more ambiguous than it could be.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: A few other thoughts have occurred to me in the light of day:
1. It's unfair to categorize Buffy as a feminist show or even a failed feminist show. I don't think it was ever intended as such. (I have not read an interview with Joss Whedon, so I could be wrong.) Just because the protagonist is an attractive high school girl does not mean that the show was meant to make a statement about women in general.
I recommend reading some interviews with Whedon then. He's more than happy to take metaphoric trophies for the way he casts and writes women. It was rare for me to find a single feminist when I still frequented such blogs that didn't practically drool every time the man opened his mouth or when Buffy was mentioned. It might very well be one of the things that soured me on so many of these blogs over time, or part of why I don't bother calling myself a feminist anymore. Pop entertainment can be a wonderful thing, but consuming pop entertainment doesn't really have anything to do with the nuts and bolts of feminism or any other political movement, as far as I'm concerned.
quote:2. ...When fans lionize the show for being pro-feminist, I think it says more about the fans and their expectations than it does about the show itself.
See my comment above. I understand why female viewers are so happy to have even this skin-deep form of "empowerment," but that's really all it is. Almost literally. The requirements of the market almost invariably undercut the supposed message. Much like Supergirl and Power Girl kicking ass while displaying most of their epidermis and looking more or less like the same individual with only minor variations. The fashion for female ass-kicking in entertainment comes and goes, but the skin displays are eternal.
quote:3. If one is looking for more realistic role models, one won't find them on mainstream TV or in Marvel and DC, for that matter. The gatekeepers are interested in peddling fantasy, not reality. (Returning to my point about Giles and Xander, notice how they were still "traditionally" attractive even though they were geeks. A more "realistic" depiction might have a balding Giles and a zit-faced Xander.)
But even in fantasy, it's noticeable when the the presentations are dissimilar according to which gender is being portrayed. Even Giles and Xander have more diversity between them in age and physical characteristics than do Buffy and Willow. The "beauty" standard just plain isn't as rigid for males as it is for females. Period.
quote:4. People do tend to read into the show what they see from their own experiences...
But that's not a one-way street. The presentation is not, is never, a neutral thing. It's presented by marketers with an eye towards shaping the consumer's reaction. The consumer doesn't create and thus doesn't have the true power. The consumer reacts and may try to adapt to or read in something that the marketers didn't intend, but it's still reaction. It's still a lesser power.
quote:One of my favorite sitcoms of all time is M*A*S*H because of its anti-war message among other reasons. Yet I knew a woman from Korea who disliked the show because of its depiction of Koreans. Watching the show now, I see her point: Koreans are often portrayed as stereotypes. (But, to be fair, the show also stereotyped Army officers, surgeons, enlisted men, and everyone else.)
The main difference between the stereotyping of Koreans and those of the (mostly) White cast members on M*A*S*H is this: How many other Koreans or even Asians in general were stars of ongoing TV shows forty years ago? How many now, for that matter? Individual portrayals are important but they don't exist in a vacuum. To understand what they really mean, you have to look at them in a larger context.
I'm probably one of the biggest M*A*S*H fans there is, but that doesn't mean the show is, or was ever, flawless.
quote:5. No show is perfect. A fair assessment comes from watching what is there and weighing the good against the bad, not from reacting to other fans' reactions of the show.
As I said, you really ought to read what Whedon's actually said about his own show then. Personally, I understand completely why people are crazy about it. I still dislike it and find it to be monumentally overrated. The mixed messages inherent in this kind of presentation of "empowerment" just don't work for me. They frustrate me instead, and nobody goes in for escapism in order to feel frustrated.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cleome: If by "attractive," you mean, "conventionally handsome" then I disagree with this entirely. There's simply a much wider variance of age, figures, and types of features allowed in entertainment for men than for women who are to be considered protagonists and "attractive" to viewers, readers and advertisers. Period. George Clooney is a star who has long been paired with beautiful younger women in his movies. So is Bill Murray. If you could find me two well-known Hollywood actresses who not only land the variety of roles that both these actors do and also differ from one another as much in appearance as do Clooney and Murray, I'd be impressed.
I thought George Clooney was considered "conventionally handsome" (to use your term). He's certainly been cast in rugged, leading man-type roles.
Perhaps the source of our disagreement is that we're using such vague terms as "conventionally handsome" or "attractive." Hollywood certainly has its standards for what it thinks appeals to the public. But, even then, trying to say whether a particular actor or actress fits into those standards is like trying to catch air in a bottle.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: [snip]
I thought George Clooney was considered "conventionally handsome" (to use your term). He's certainly been cast in rugged, leading man-type roles.
Uh, yeah. He is. That's kind of the point. Whereas Murray is not. But there's no female counterpart of Bill Murray in Hollywood that I've ever heard of.
quote:Perhaps the source of our disagreement is that we're using such vague terms as "conventionally handsome" or "attractive." Hollywood certainly has its standards for what it thinks appeals to the public. But, even then, trying to say whether a particular actor or actress fits into those standards is like trying to catch air in a bottle.
It's not hard for me at all. Then again, I'm an artist. A failed one, but still an artist.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: Deep intellectual discussions.
Doesn't this belong in the thread called "Things I've Always Hated And Never Made Any Secret Of Hating"?
And I'm not deep or intellectual. Just overeducated, underemployed, and chronically grumpy. I can link you to the real 'net intellectuals in exchange for ten bucks and a pint of good bourbon, though.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
Oh, and speaking of booze (because it always comes back to booze, even at 11:30 in the morning):
Single-malt scotch is disgusting. It all tastes like dish soap. Very, very expensive, prestigious dish soap.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cleome: Pop entertainment can be a wonderful thing, but consuming pop entertainment doesn't really have anything to do with the nuts and bolts of feminism or any other political movement, as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed. Absolutely. 100 percent.
Which also means that anything Whedon takes credit for regarding feminism is suspect.
quote: I understand why female viewers are so happy to have even this skin-deep form of "empowerment," but that's really all it is. Almost literally. The requirements of the market almost invariably undercut the supposed message. Much like Supergirl and Power Girl kicking ass while displaying most of their epidermis and looking more or less like the same individual with only minor variations. The fashion for female ass-kicking in entertainment comes and goes, but the skin displays are eternal.
If some women (and men, for that matter) look to a TV show for empowerment, they need to get a life.
Perhaps I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but I don't see comics or TV shows as having any significant message beyond "Watch me for an hour so I can get you through the commercials." Granted, some shows do try to impart a message but often the message is superficial, simplistic, or heavy-handed. M*A*S*H, for example, made a strong anti-war point, but in doing so, it characterized officers as inept, surgeons as clever, and Koreans as simple country folk. This is not reality--or, rather, it's a very simplified form of reality.
Viewers must know going into a show that they are getting someone else's view of the world, not the world itself. Knowing this means we should not look to shows for empowerment.
quote:But even in fantasy, it's noticeable when the the presentations are dissimilar according to which gender is being portrayed. Even Giles and Xander have more diversity between them in age and physical characteristics than do Buffy and Willow. The "beauty" standard just plain isn't as rigid for males as it is for females. Period.
Funny . . . I was thinking just the opposite about Xander/Giles and Buffy/Willow. Perhaps I was focusing more on their personalities than on their physical appearances. Willow is a very different character than Buffy and adds a much different dynamic to the team than the latter does. Willow is the "shy" and "sweet" one (to use admittedly stereotyped terms) who serves as a foil for Buffy's more outgoing personality.
The same distinction might also be true of Xander and Giles, but, as you note, their age differences set them apart. Because Willow and Buffy were closer in age, they had to have more sharply defined personalities, and I think they did.
quote:
quote:4. People do tend to read into the show what they see from their own experiences...[/qb]
But that's not a one-way street. The presentation is not, is never, a neutral thing. It's presented by marketers with an eye towards shaping the consumer's reaction. The consumer doesn't create and thus doesn't have the true power. The consumer reacts and may try to adapt to or read in something that the marketers didn't intend, but it's still reaction. It's still a lesser power.[/QB]
Consumers also have a different power: We can turn off the TV set or turn the channel and watch something else.
Portraying consumers as powerless entities that can only soak up what the marketing gods deign to give us is an image with which I cannot agree.
quote:
quote:One of my favorite sitcoms of all time is M*A*S*H because of its anti-war message among other reasons. Yet I knew a woman from Korea who disliked the show because of its depiction of Koreans. Watching the show now, I see her point: Koreans are often portrayed as stereotypes. (But, to be fair, the show also stereotyped Army officers, surgeons, enlisted men, and everyone else.) [/qb]
The main difference between the stereotyping of Koreans and those of the (mostly) White cast members on M*A*S*H is this: How many other Koreans or even Asians in general were stars of ongoing TV shows forty years ago? How many now, for that matter? Individual portrayals are important but they don't exist in a vacuum. To understand what they really mean, you have to look at them in a larger context.[/QB]
True, and, as I said, I now see my friend's point.
But there are many different "contexts" to look at. The reality of TV shows is that M*A*S*H had half an hour to sell its idea that war is bad and it did so by casting all of its characters in the broadest terms possible, as most TV shows do.
quote:I'm probably one of the biggest M*A*S*H fans there is, but that doesn't mean the show is, or was ever, flawless.
And, to be perfectly clear, I never said it was flawless, either.
quote:The mixed messages inherent in this kind of presentation of "empowerment" just don't work for me. They frustrate me instead, and nobody goes in for escapism in order to feel frustrated. [/QB]
Then you absolutely should stay away from it or from any show that makes you feel frustrated.
By the way, I'm enjoying this discussion. We see the show in so many different ways that I'm learning a lot from your views. Thanks for an intelligent and lively debate.
[ March 20, 2010, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: He Who Wanders ]
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
I thought George Clooney was considered "conventionally handsome" (to use your term). He's certainly been cast in rugged, leading man-type roles.
Uh, yeah. He is. That's kind of the point. Whereas Murray is not. But there's no female counterpart of Bill Murray in Hollywood that I've ever heard of.
Then I missed your point about Clooney. My bad.
I'm not sure any more exactly what Bill Murray's "type" is. He normally does not star in movies I care to watch. In his younger days, he was the laid-back and somewhat goofy but still "attractive" leading man--at least that was his role in Ghostbusters and Spies Like Us, where he worked alongside the even less "conventionally handsome" Dan Aykroyd.
What role he plays now in movies I can't say.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
Murray, at least originally, was a comedian rather than the conventional leading man, so somewhat different rules apply to him. Traditionally, other-than-conventionally-handsome men are relegated to comedic roles, often as supporting characters or sidekicks to more conventionally handsome leading men.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
quote:Originally posted by Eryk Davis Ester: Murray, at least originally, was a comedian rather than the conventional leading man, so somewhat different rules apply to him. Traditionally, other-than-conventionally-handsome men are relegated to comedic roles, often as supporting characters or sidekicks to more conventionally handsome leading men.
Clooney has played comedic roles and Murray has played dramatic ones, however. And somehow it's always a big deal when one guy crosses over into the other guy's territory. People forget that one reason this is possible is because the roles exist for them, as such roles rarely do for actresses.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: Returning to Buffy, I'm still struck by the idea that it was the women who had the powers in the show and not the men. The show may fall far short of making a feminist statement, but I think it was quite revolutionary in its own way.
On the one hand, cool, even revolutionary, in it's own way, but on the other hand, if the only way a woman can be portrayed as 'empowered' or in a primary leadership role over men is if she *has superpowers,* that goes right back around to de-empowerment, IMO.
It just says to the 3.5 billion real women in the real world, that, since they *don't* have the ability to bench-press a Buick, this 'empowerment' is not *their* empowerment.
If Willow, for example, had remained a geeky smart nerd who used her hacking skills, enormous squishy brain and basic good-heartedness and unflappable optimism to contribute just fine for the first few seasons, then *that* would be an empowering message, IMO, since it would be saying that *Willow,* the mousy little slip of a girl, could make a difference, and not that the Super-Wicca Jean-Grey / Dark-Phoenix-pastiche was what makes her 'empowered' or special or relevant to the story.
By making the two core female characters super-powered, while two of the three main male characters, Xander and Giles, remained un-empowered, and yet considered 'full Scoobies,' it suggests that women are *not* considered equal, and that they have to have super-powers to 'count.'
Dark Angel, IMO, did a marginally better job of this particular thing, in that Max regularly associated with male super-powered folk by the second season (Joshua and Alec) and yet was clearly the leader, not because she was stronger (that would be Joshua), but because she was the best suited for that role, for reasons that had nothing to do with her gender or her super-endowments.
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: Returning to Buffy, I'm still struck by the idea that it was the women who had the powers in the show and not the men. The show may fall far short of making a feminist statement, but I think it was quite revolutionary in its own way.
On the one hand, cool, even revolutionary, in it's own way, but on the other hand, if the only way a woman can be portrayed as 'empowered' or in a primary leadership role over men is if she *has superpowers,* that goes right back around to de-empowerment, IMO.
Good point, although we can extrapolate a little further and say that all super-heroes carry this message. In other words, the only way a man or a woman can succeed in a super-hero universe is to have powers.
quote: If Willow, for example, had remained a geeky smart nerd who used her hacking skills, enormous squishy brain and basic good-heartedness and unflappable optimism to contribute just fine for the first few seasons, then *that* would be an empowering message, IMO, since it would be saying that *Willow,* the mousy little slip of a girl, could make a difference, and not that the Super-Wicca Jean-Grey / Dark-Phoenix-pastiche was what makes her 'empowered' or special or relevant to the story.
This, too, is a good point. But I wonder, does Willow later becoming a witch take anything away from her accomplishments as a "geeky smart nerd" in the earlier seasons?
quote:By making the two core female characters super-powered, while two of the three main male characters, Xander and Giles, remained un-empowered, and yet considered 'full Scoobies,' it suggests that women are *not* considered equal, and that they have to have super-powers to 'count.'
I disagree. Willow was, after all, a full Scooby before she became a witch.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
cleome46
or you can do the confusion 'til your head falls off
posted
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
By the way, I'm enjoying this discussion. We see the show in so many different ways that I'm learning a lot from your views. Thanks for an intelligent and lively debate.
Crap. I did it wrong. Again.
Likewise, I'm sure.
-------------------- Hey, Kids! My "Cranky and Kitschy" collage art is now viewable on flickr. Drop by and tell me that I sent you.
From: Vanity, OR | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[I Dunno]](graemlins/urk.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
