Joss Quits Twitter

[The Bronze]

The general complaint is there are too many male characters or not enough strong female characters or the female characters don't behave in whatever way is considered correct by feminism. Well Joss has shows full of good characters both men and women. They're all believable and different people can relate to them. Who's looking at Buffy and saying it's alright but where are the good roles for women?

 

[Ethan Reigns]

From a TV perspective surely having decent and believable characters of both sexes represents equality and therefore feminism.

Not at all. The clinging vine girlfriend, the barefoot, pregnant wife in the kitchen are believable characters and may be decent characters but certainly not feminist. And don't forget hackneyed writing such as scenes where the boy and girl are running away from something in the forest that is chasing them and the girl trips and falls and twists her ankle and the boy has to go back and rescue her. This is believable, decent and about as anti-feminist as it gets.

 

[thetopher]

Not at all. The clinging vine girlfriend, the barefoot, pregnant wife in the kitchen are believable characters and may be decent characters but certainly not feminist. And don't forget hackneyed writing such as scenes where the boy and girl are running away from something in the forest that is chasing them and the girl trips and falls and twists her ankle and the boy has to go back and rescue her.

That's not what he was saying at all- the point was that if you can take 'gender prejudice' out of a role then you have quality- if a role could be played by a man or a woman then that, surely, is feminist in terms of equality.
Adrianna Palicki's role in 'John Wick' is a perfect example- the role of rival hitman/killer was written gender neutral and so the producer's cast the best person for the part- a woman.

A comparitive example is in GoT there are the Unsullied, all-male slave warrior cast who cannot have children for the exact same reason as Black Widow. They are castrated because of the belief is that this makes them better soldiers. And yet I don't see people screaming about misandry in GoT about how men are misrepresented, about they are being denied their 'maleness' or such nonsense.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

That's not what he was saying at all- the point was that if you can take 'gender prejudice' out of a role then you have quality- if a role could be played by a man or a woman then that, surely, is feminist in terms of equality.
Adrianna Palicki's role in 'John Wick' is a perfect example- the role of rival hitman/killer was written gender neutral and so the producer's cast the best person for the part- a woman.

But that's not a taking gender prejudice out of the picture, it's ignoring it.

A comparitive example is in GoT there are the Unsullied, all-male slave warrior cast who cannot have children for the exact same reason as Black Widow. They are castrated because of the belief is that this makes them better soldiers. And yet I don't see people screaming about misandry in GoT about how men are misrepresented, about they are being denied their 'maleness' or such nonsense.

It's not comparative at all.

 

[Mr Trick]

Not at all. The clinging vine girlfriend, the barefoot, pregnant wife in the kitchen are believable characters and may be decent characters but certainly not feminist. And don't forget hackneyed writing such as scenes where the boy and girl are running away from something in the forest that is chasing them and the girl trips and falls and twists her ankle and the boy has to go back and rescue her. This is believable, decent and about as anti-feminist as it gets.

Not only do I found some this really outdated, but I am confused about what you are trying to say. Why is the girl running away more likely to trip and need help than the man? And why would a woman antimatically be more clinging than a man. Times have changed.

The whole point about feminism is for women to have equal opporuntities to men, but also to retain the right not to accept them without being branded as 'letting the side down', just like a man should be given the same freedom. On television the ideal would be to see a representation which bridges the gap between showing that women do have distinct differences to men (it would be unrealistic and insulting to pretend otherwise), but also that they can match them on every level, and also that they are not reduced to crude stereotypes.

Maybe Joss could have handled this better, but its his right to leave twitter, and I don't blame him based on the abuse he has been getting. I will wait until I see the film before commenting on the character, but am very much in the camp of he has written good and bad characters of both genders, which suggests to me that like anyone in a creative field he can have an off day, and when he has such an off day people should not suddenly call him a sexist and conventiontly forget how progressive his female characters have been over the years. Without Buffy and X-Files the 90s would have looked more bleak for female characters in Sci-Fil television.

 

[Taake]

and when he has such an off day people should not suddenly call him a sexist and conventiontly forget how progressive his female characters have been over the years. Without Buffy and X-Files the 90s would have looked more bleak for female characters in Sci-Fil television.

I don't think anyone is forgetting anything, but the past doesn't make you exempt from scrutiny in the future...

 

[Mr Trick]

I don't think anyone is forgetting anything, but the past doesn't make you exempt from scrutiny in the future...

No, but likewise it doesn't make you sexist just because you happen to write a poor female character, which is what I think a lot of people seem to be saying.

 

[thetopher]

But that's not a taking gender prejudice out of the picture, it's ignoring it.

No, it's saying that gender doesn't matter for this particular role- isn't that what equality is about? Unless you're saying that gender should always be a consideration for an acting role, which seems counter-productive if we're talking about everybody being equal in terms of film.

There's more than one way to write specific gender roles and be considered feminist. I'll give an example; Ellen Ripley in 'Alien' and 'Aliens'.

Now in 'Alien' the fact that Ellen Ripley is a woman doesn't really matter either way, she's just one of the crew. She's smart, brave and cool in a crisis but her being a female character only really matters in the sense that the film subverts (at the time) audience expectations that somebody like the likeable, heroic male captain Dallas would be the one to survive, wheras he's one of the first to die.

But in 'Aliens' Rilpley's gender is emphasised in a couple of key moments throughout the movie, the touching scene where she finds out that during her 'sleep' her daughter has died of old age and then later on where she befriends Newt and manages to bond with her, find out what happened to the colony and so forth.

Add to the that the contrast between the very gung ho machismo of the colonial marines that disapates as soon as they encounter their first aliens and Ripley's righteous momma bear 'get away from her you bitch' moment at the films climax. She's very much a woman in a protagonist role- but at the end of the day both movies still have a stong, lead female character.

It's not comparative at all.

Well since you put it so succinctly way I'll guess we'll agree to disagree.

The whole point about feminism is for women to have equal opporuntities to men, but also to retain the right not to accept them without being branded as 'letting the side down', just like a man should be given the same freedom. On television the ideal would be to see a representation which bridges the gap between showing that women do have distinct differences to men (it would be unrealistic and insulting to pretend otherwise), but also that they can match them on every level, and also that they are not reduced to crude stereotypes.

100% agree. 🙂

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Well since you put it so succinctly way I'll guess we'll agree to disagree.

Were not we always going to do so? When you consider men with boobs to be feminism there is no point in arguing.

 

[Taake]

No, but likewise it doesn't make you sexist just because you happen to write a poor female character, which is what I think a lot of people seem to be saying.

To me what people are saying is that he wrote the character in a sexist (or distinctly gendered) fashion.
And her storyline was to me reducing her to a crude stereotype and that is very disappointing because I don't see Captain America or Tony Stark running around and bewailing their childlessness. It's a non-issue to them. So why can't it be to Black Widow?

To me at least this is not the same as saying that Joss is inherently sexist. But it certainly shows to me that he too has some growing to do in his depiction of female characters and that the backlash against him now is not surprising because people had come to expect more from him.

 

[thetopher]

Were not we always going to do so? When you consider men with boobs to be feminism there is no point in arguing.

And I guess when you consider gender the be all and end all of a character no matter what the context then you don't really understand the term 'equality'. 😉

 

[Skanky Vamp]

And I guess when you consider gender the be all and end all of a character no matter what the context then you don't really understand the term 'equality'. 😉

Do my words taste good in your mouth? I dont particularly like you putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say gender was the end all be all of a character? 

then you don't really understand the term 'equality'.

Furthermore, it's easy to talk about how the sexes are equal when you are coming from the majority standpoint. When you, as a male, don't have to worry about the mistreatment women get on a continual basis. When you don't have to worry about lesser paying jobs simply because of your gender. When you dont have to worry about being fired from your job because you got pregnant. When you dont have to worry about the choice of a family or a career, and being labeled one thing when you make your choice. Maybe you sir, dont understand what equality means. 😉

 

[thetopher]

Do my words taste good in your mouth? I dont particularly like you putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say gender was the end all be all of a character?

Oh sorry, I thought we were doing the 'grossly simplifying each others arguments' thing. We're not doing that?

In which case I never said that 'guy with boobs= feminism', as anybody who'd actually read all of my post would realise. I did say that gender doesn't (indeed nor should it) always matter in a role. That, to me, is equality.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Oh sorry, I thought we were doing the 'grossly simplifying each others arguments' thing. We're not doing that?

You said when you can take the GENDER out of a female role, like "Adrianna Palicki's role in 'John Wick'" then it is equality. How is that not saying men with boobs? How does making a female role LESS female equal equality. Are you also making the male less male?

 

[thetopher]

Furthermore, it's easy to talk about spout how the sexes are equal when you are coming from the majority standpoint. When you, as a male, don't have to worry about the mistreatment women get on a continual basis. When you don't have to worry about lesser paying jobs simply because of your gender. When you dont have to worry about being fired from your job because you got pregnant. When you dont have to worry about the choice of a family or a career, and being labeled one thing when you make your choice.

Getting pretty OT here aren't we?
So basically you're saying that I, as a man/male/sir, can have no opinion on the subject of gender equality. Not even in wishing that gender wasn't made such as huge, big deal in terms of story-telling in films? Isn't that what we're striving for here?

Eh, but what do I know, right? it seems you know everything about me simply from my being a guy. 🙄

Maybe you sir, dont understand what equality means. 😉

A little more than you apparently. 😉

You said when you can take the GENDER out of a female role, like "Adrianna Palicki's role in 'John Wick'" then it is equality. How is that not saying men with boobs?

1) It wasn't a female role- it was a GENDER NEUTRAL ROLE that they happened to cast a woman for. Imagine if they did this more often- who's the best actor for a part regardless of gender- that would lead to more gender equality on-screen because it wouldn't matter if they were a guy or a woman because they would be whatever the role required- hardbitten cop, hitman, president, whatever.

and 2) I did give other examples, sometimes it does make sense/is a good thing to emphasise a characters gender to help enhance the story but it is not, as you seem to think, the most important thing about a characters role in a movie.

 

[Mr Trick]

Do my words taste good in your mouth? I dont particularly like you putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say gender was the end all be all of a character? 

Furthermore, it's easy to talk about how the sexes are equal when you are coming from the majority standpoint. When you, as a male, don't have to worry about the mistreatment women get on a continual basis. When you don't have to worry about lesser paying jobs simply because of your gender. When you dont have to worry about being fired from your job because you got pregnant. When you dont have to worry about the choice of a family or a career, and being labeled one thing when you make your choice. Maybe you sir, dont understand what equality means. 😉

But what we are talking about here is how women should be constructed on TV in order to progress things, and I would argue the same for men on TV, that is one reason I really like the Fox Mulder character because he is allowed to have an alternative masculinity, but equally be a down to earth everyday guy too. Buffy as a show broke down a lot of the gender stereotypes for both men and women (look at characters like Xander and Spike), and this point should not be forgotten.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But what we are talking about here is how women should be constructed on TV in order to progress things

We weren't really talking about TV though, more the movies. With the right writing and directing it is easier to do things on TV. Because you have a wider brush, and longer time to establish the characters. I agree, in TV it is easier to make full developed female characters than it is in genre movies, which often follow stereotypical roles for genre movies. 

A little more than you apparently. 😉

Possibly, you dont know nearly as much as you think you do.

 

[thetopher]

Possibly, you dont know nearly as much as you think you do.

Well I never said that you didn't have the right to an opinion simply because of your gender.

Which, on a thread that's become about gender equality, is pretty ironic. 😉

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Well I never said that you didn't have the right to an opinion simply because of your gender.

And where did I? I think you are confusing it with the other thread in that stated "in your opinion as a woman" to which I said you opinion was devalued because you were not a woman. Where did I say anyone did not have a right to their opinion based on their gender? My whole argument that started this was that the people that had a problem DID have a right to their opinion BECAUSE of their gender.

Which, on a thread that's become about gender equality, is pretty ironic. 😉

Well, that's news to me because what you were talking about earlier was neutrality.

 

[thetopher]

And where did I?

Where did I say anyone did not have a right to their opinion based on their gender?

Pretty much here:

Furthermore, it's easy to talk about how the sexes are equal when you are coming from the majority standpoint. When you, as a male, don't have to worry about the mistreatment women get on a continual basis. When you don't have to worry about lesser paying jobs simply because of your gender. When you dont have to worry about being fired from your job because you got pregnant. When you dont have to worry about the choice of a family or a career, and being labeled one thing when you make your choice. Maybe you sir, dont understand what equality means.

Inferred- 'Shut up you man you! You don't even know what you're talking about.'

Because you somehow know everything about me and my life because I'm a guy? How do you know that I haven't been mistreated, harrassed or discriminated against, or suffered prejudice?
There are other bad things in the world apart from feminist unequality. Just sayin'.

Well, that's news to me because what you were talking about earlier was neutrality.

*slowly beats head against wall* wrong again. I NEVER said that gender didn't matter at all. I did say that it should matter less in film roles (because of the lack of strong roles for women- casting should, ideally, be unbias in terms of gender) and gave an example.
I did say that gender matters sometimes, but not all the time. I even gave AN EXAMPLE of where it matters in an iconic film role.

Just...go and read the previous posts again, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.