The Trouble with Feminism in Buffy
- Thread starter Noitartst
- Start date
Straight up they are.
What "universal truths" do you speak of?
Oh, you forget the role that instincts play. Pickup artists study the nature of their prey quite closely, but there would be no art if it were all science.
You see why I find you paranoid? You keep thinking we, or I should say patriarchy, is out to get you, but you know what? Those "bad old days" were bad for us, too, and simply primitive all around. You merely focus one aspect of them, gender relation, and get outraged.
I'd venture to say that despite postmodernity, in the end, they still do, and that's because instincts are instincts.
Some people naturally stray from them, but what of it? These exceptions ought not to be held up as ideals to be built upon, because bad things happen when they do. You know how the parents of that kid got the idea to do what they did? Well, after making the erroneous assumption that size was everything, and a man is little more than his rod, they saw some folks on TV who had undergone "sex changes" and were happy. Well, being told, and accepting, that gender was little more than social conditioning, and maybe a little in hormones, they decided to turn their boy into a girl, because gender wasn't very important, right? It had been proven, right? Well, turns out, it is, and those who claimed otherwise were over-eager enthusiasts who thought those who wanted to live as the other gender proved their point were sadly (and tragically) mistaken.
Congratulations. Do you realize you just gave a cogent argument for intellectual bullying? I hate folks of all types in fiction being set up to be knocked down, and while it doesn't happen all the time on Buffy, it does happen, and I'm against it.
If you haven't noticed, feminism in popular fiction is pretty common these days, and most of all I get insulted by all the cheap, didactic messages. I don't like horror flicks, but I can sympathize with Wheddon feeling sorry for the predictasble victims, even if he bought at least some into an ideology that creates its own list of approved scapegoats. (His modeling Xander off himself was just masochist.)
See? See? You seem to assume that gender differences are a bad thing, and that's where we diverge.
You seem to think patriarchy is really afraid of you; I think my liking Buffy helps disprove this.
Joss himself initially set Cordelia up as such a cliche, before he found himself toughening her up on Angel. I don't know about you, but I disliked Cordy at either extreme, though in the middle I liked her quite well.
I go to a dojo; it's a pretty masculine environment, even if there are some female senseis. You would probably call that "patriarchal tradition," but those into dojo, I think it pretty safe to say, wouldn't be there if they didn't dig it. Ironically, it's also wonderfully non-discriminatory, with promotions on merit and the like. Since you seem to see patriarchy as uniformly negative, you may not call it such, but the dojo is to me the best of of what patriarchy offers, and that's stability, order, and hierarchy.
Nature's not fair, it just is, friend; patriarchy didn't make gender differences, even if it embellished them culturally at times, but then again, women, in their competing against other women for the shortest skirt and the like, have done likewise.
Power centers emerge out of nature naturally, based on all kinds of factors. It's part random, maybe largely random, but I can tell you, making things uniform, precisely reflecting diversity reflecting things such as diversity and the like, is unnatural. You may have a point about diversity, but forcing the issue is a bad idea, if you ask me.
In the English tradition, Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters strike me as eminently good counter-examples from centuries past, along with George Eliot.
And yet you seem to think that feminism, hostile as it is to gender differences, should be relevant to everybody.
Yeah, right.
To a certain, degree, society does onj that basis, but you seem to think it's the only one, and if it was true once, I certainly don't see it as true now.
Nobody said you weren't, at least not to my knowledge. Once again, you seem presume hostility, and it does not become.
Different, yes, but not completely. You and that Kinseyan, for whatever reason, share a low regard for gender differences. If somebody assumes that gender differences are largely arbitrary, well...what does that allow for?
I hold a higher regard for gender, on the other hand. You really think I wouldn't deem that catastrophe justification for my distrust of such thinking? I mean, come on.
So you're not against how we interact, but you are in how we we're portrayed? I'll agree that portrayals can be damaging, and that's largely what I take issue with in Buffy, subtly damaging, subtly hostile gender portrayals, even if it's brilliant overall. We might differ in the specif what, but here, I'd say we share some common ground.
---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 PM ----------
Oh, I hear you; I have been filling out job application and facing down anhedonia, but if you want to say I've been too tardy in my replies, you could say that. Also, for me, I tend to get tunnel vision replying to emails, and since I can spend hours replying to just one, well, I've found the need to be selective, or else face burnout.
---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------
Oh, I hear you; I have been filling out job application and facing down anhedonia, but if you want to say I've been too tardy in my replies, you could say that. Also, for me, I tend to get tunnel vision replying to emails, and since I can spend hours replying to just one, well, I've found the need to be selective, or else face burnout.
---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------
Go to any bookstore, and break out a book on body language; see what it says about mating rituals.
Professor Walsh
I thought you just dropped by for that one-liner, but as you can see you changed my mind.
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
I don't think you know what patriarchy is. It's not simply a "masculine environment". It is a complex system that involves the privileging of one group based on their gender (aka...men) and the active disenfranchisement of others (women, non-binary people, etc.).
From what you've described, your dojo is "non-discriminatory". Great. That's excellent, actually. Because if it's non-discriminatory...well, then it's not a patriarchal system. Your dojo is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting that your dojo offers "stability, order, and hierarchy" because it is run by men, the subtext there being that women aren't capable of the same standards? Because that's just clearly sexist.
And this is where I take major issue, because your claims of essentialism are crossing over into biological determinism. Because "random", no. "natural", no. Maybe how systems began, sure, maybe that was "random". But how those power structures persist? How they are built on the exploitation of others and how they're still functioning and relevant today? That has absolutely nothing to do with coincidence.
I so do not have the time to respond to everything, nor am I interested in quoting every single thing you are saying, so here, have an excellent article:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress...d-women-are-born-different-isnt-that-obvious/
Bolded emphasis is mine.
Please don't conjecture what people know and don't know. These topics are intense and it's important to not let them get the best of us.
Let's try and focus on what you do know yourself and try to civilly explain it to others without putting them down. It makes for a much more pleasant forum experience for us all.
🙂
Professor Walsh
Feminist slayerette
Y'know, it was just a straight forward question because I was unsure how to read what you'd written. While I have absolutely no idea who you are talking about as I am unfamiliar with anime in general, I take that as an answer indicating that you don't find women being strong an anomaly.
Yes, being informed is always of the good. It takes time, though, to really get into the depth of a subject, and a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I know for myself how much more sure I felt a year into my university studies than I do today. Your posts give me a feeling that a lot of your understaning of behaviour comes from works like the women from Venus and men from Mars stuff, rather than scientific sources. (Yes, I know that these books cite scientists as their sources, but it is a rather narrow selection they use.) If you are genuinely interested, and you have the time, it looks like the biology section of your college gives a good course on animal behaviour. Body language is about more than reproduction.
P
prophecygrrl
I love your banner!
VisionGirl
Me too- mad scientist Maggie!
I believe I could say the same for you, and by the way, I like your new picture.
That's the feminist definition, and I doubt it's a good one, because you keep assuming patriarchy is out to get you. Patriarchy has, and may, do that, but you simply don't understand our motives, nor do you try.
I think it's apt to say that patriarchy is "a state of the soul," and it's all about preservation. Like I said, you may think we're against you, but we're really against disorder and chaos; our prejudice has caused us to sometimes take the wrong side of history, but we're against instability in all forms, and won't apologize for that.
I'm not; I am positing, though, that your definition regarding patriarchy is a bad one. patriarchy is not perfect, but it respects what is, and that certainly is nothing that feminism can do.
And this is where I take issue with you, feminist. I know the world's not perfect, I know that change is needed, but your solutions strike me as ideological, and therefore shallow, like you assume to hold certain things to be self-evident, and I don't believe that they are, which is the problem. We believe in and distrust different things; you need to recognize it.
I will agree with you that biological determinism doesn't get the final say in the matter, but dispute you if you claim that it doesn't have any, and I think that's the common sense of moderation, there.
Don't you see? You keep assuming bad intent! You assume patriarchy is selfish, which in part it most definitely is, but you refuse to see the larger scope! Patriarchy cares, at a minimum, about order and continuity, things which don't register at all with you, and that's true problem, not because he hates uppity dames, or even diversity. You've got to take that into consideration, and you're not.
Oh, and thanks for that factually lying article; it was very interesting, and demonstrates why I distrust feminism wonderfuly, and that's because it distorts the truth.
It sure makes some bold assertions, doesn't it? I sure wish I knew what "for any quality measured there is far more variation among the group of all men and among the group of all women than there is on average between individuals of opposite sex,"
because from what I've read, the statistics sound pretty stark.
Take the issue of strength, for instance, one of the things it claims "to be utterly without foundation."
In the wikipedia article on gender differences it states:
"On average, males are physically stronger than females. The differences in strength are due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males. Females also have lower muscle mass in comparison to total body weight. Gross measures of upper body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference between the sexes, compared to a 30% difference in lower body strength. In another similar estimate, females are about 52 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 66 percent as strong in the lower. One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees"”in 45 and older males and females"”found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Males are not stronger due to greater strength of individual muscle fibers, but due to more fibers: a greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body weight. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-weight ratio."
Sounds to me like that author's understanding the gender differences by a great deal, if you ask me, but I do go on. When the author states that "indicators of sexual dimorphism" aren't "relevant when discussing rights" I'm inclined to agree, but it's writing like this that confirms my worst suspicions about feminism being opposed to the natural order when they distort truth.
In "The Brain in Love," by Dr. Daniel Amen, he has has a whole chapter on differences between males and females, and starts it with a quote by an expert stating that while you can't tell one's ethnicity with a brain scan, you can tell the gender, which to me is pretty decisive.
---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------
Strength is conviction, sacrifice; trouble is, it's mostly portrayed in terms of gender conflict, which I find tedious.
And you're a science, teacher, yes? Well, you should know more about this than I do.
Never read it.
Oh, are you saying that men on average don't get twenty times the testosterone that women do? Are you really saying that the brain differences aren't as clear-cut as Dr. Amen suggests? So far, I haven't heard you claim anything like that.
As for body language, yes, it's more than sexual, but some authors tend to highlight the sexual implications to the hilt I'm just saying, and claim it's the unifying concept.
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
I apologize for getting snippy earlier. Not the best of weeks for me, among other things. :/
Here's the thing. For me, what I know of patriarchy is formed by the totality of my lived experiences as someone who is faced with it every day. What I believe of gender oppression and how patriarchy perpetuates it is not rampant ideology, not conjecture, and it's certainly not "shallow", as you said. All the evidence I need of patriarchy as a harmful, bigoted system is with me always: in how I am personally treated on the basis of my gender, in how I see other women treated like objects and animals no matter their status as individual human beings, and in how I see non-binary people consistently erased. I see the narratives and experiences of women (including my own) and people of other genders always dismissed, belittled, and erased entirely. The harm of patriarchy exists in the lives of men, too- in the pressure to be always "manly", stoic, and strong, the (ciscentrist) idea that a man's worth is tied to his penis, etc.
So I am not simply "assuming" anything. From my own perspective, I happen to live with the consequences of patriarchy every day. We all do. We are affected by it differently, but it is not so radical to say that women and minority genders bear the weight of patriarchy, since it's *our* disenfranchisement that allows it to exist.
My feminism is a basic response to my own oppression, and it does not arise out of me not being able to understand the accomplishments or intentions of men.
I disagree that patriarchy is "a state of the soul". That very statement is really problematic, because the immediate question is whose soul? A man's soul? Because it is certainly not my soul we are talking about here, and it's highly improbable that that statement would apply to another woman either, or anybody who is directly/indirectly harmed by patriarchy.
That statement, to me, is a really prime example of how problematic patriarchy is. We are meant to assume that this male experience is an adequate stand-in for people of all genders, and it's very clearly not. I'm right here, and I'm telling you that I take issue with that statement as a woman. I can see the counterargument right now, that there are exceptions, etc. but even that is problematic- different viewpoints and experiences should not be considered exceptions to an overall perspective. They exist just as much as your viewpoints and experiences exist, and equal respect should be paid to them. If we relegate them to just exceptions, what does that say about what we consider the standard? More importantly, what does that say about our attitude towards those who don't fit the standard?
And two, if we're talking about physical strength, the key words here are "on average". That inherently means that these are not facts that apply to everybody, but what is "average". So yes, on average, men are physically stronger than women. But that statistic often translates into an assumption about all people, and that's what the author (and I) are contesting. Especially when people cite that statistic as justification for the problematic notion that biological differences mean someone is *incapable* of doing a certain thing or being a certain way.
Here's the thing. For me, what I know of patriarchy is formed by the totality of my lived experiences as someone who is faced with it every day. What I believe of gender oppression and how patriarchy perpetuates it is not rampant ideology, not conjecture, and it's certainly not "shallow", as you said. All the evidence I need of patriarchy as a harmful, bigoted system is with me always: in how I am personally treated on the basis of my gender, in how I see other women treated like objects and animals no matter their status as individual human beings, and in how I see non-binary people consistently erased. I see the narratives and experiences of women (including my own) and people of other genders always dismissed, belittled, and erased entirely. The harm of patriarchy exists in the lives of men, too- in the pressure to be always "manly", stoic, and strong, the (ciscentrist) idea that a man's worth is tied to his penis, etc.
So I am not simply "assuming" anything. From my own perspective, I happen to live with the consequences of patriarchy every day. We all do. We are affected by it differently, but it is not so radical to say that women and minority genders bear the weight of patriarchy, since it's *our* disenfranchisement that allows it to exist.
My feminism is a basic response to my own oppression, and it does not arise out of me not being able to understand the accomplishments or intentions of men.
I disagree that patriarchy is "a state of the soul". That very statement is really problematic, because the immediate question is whose soul? A man's soul? Because it is certainly not my soul we are talking about here, and it's highly improbable that that statement would apply to another woman either, or anybody who is directly/indirectly harmed by patriarchy.
That statement, to me, is a really prime example of how problematic patriarchy is. We are meant to assume that this male experience is an adequate stand-in for people of all genders, and it's very clearly not. I'm right here, and I'm telling you that I take issue with that statement as a woman. I can see the counterargument right now, that there are exceptions, etc. but even that is problematic- different viewpoints and experiences should not be considered exceptions to an overall perspective. They exist just as much as your viewpoints and experiences exist, and equal respect should be paid to them. If we relegate them to just exceptions, what does that say about what we consider the standard? More importantly, what does that say about our attitude towards those who don't fit the standard?
For one, the author was most likely speaking of more than just physical strength.
And two, if we're talking about physical strength, the key words here are "on average". That inherently means that these are not facts that apply to everybody, but what is "average". So yes, on average, men are physically stronger than women. But that statistic often translates into an assumption about all people, and that's what the author (and I) are contesting. Especially when people cite that statistic as justification for the problematic notion that biological differences mean someone is *incapable* of doing a certain thing or being a certain way.
It's alright; I can handle it.
Now we're getting down to it! How has it hurt you?
Example?
Example?
Non-binary? I really don't know what you mean.
Well, you know what? If you knew just all the narratives I believed in, you'd dismiss them, too. I don't like getting my beliefs kicked around by "liberals" in the general media very much, but you know what? Folks abuse others to protect their own narratives, if there's a conflict. If there's a better way, tell me, because unless you feel sorry for me, why ought I to feel sorry for you if we're belittling each other to further our beliefs?
Intellectual conflict is simply murder.
Yes, there is pressure, but you once again, seem to assume its altogether a bad thing, and it's not. I loathe political correctness, but don't feminists use it to further their social ends? Social pressure, be it the company of two or many, will always exist, and hopefully it will be constructive, and that always depends on the context.
And as for the pressure to be manly, well, please do not judge us. I think of that undercover lesbian, so shocked at our apparently emotionless, unfeeling way we behaved around each other. Sometimes we overdo it, but I see no grounds for pity, though. We naturally feel the call to be tough to a greater, or lesser, extent, but you simply can't judge our mentality instinctively because you don't have it, just as I can't judge yours. We can try to understand, and to a greater or lesser extent succeed, but that's not quite the same.
You've not explained a thing. you "say" patriarchy's abused you. You "say" it's oppressed you. And, yet you haven't shown a single example of "it" doing so! Well, if I hazarded a guess, you live in the first world, right? Pretty clearly, you went to college, too, so you're educated. Best I can tell, you don't have it bad at all.
You haven't said you were a lesbian, you haven't said your father abused you, you haven't said you've bee raped, and the list goes on. If you had listed any of these or similar, I would have more sympathy, but what you express sounds more like a vague discontent about gender relations.
As one who's lefthanded with Aspergers, I can tell a thing or two about being at odds with the world, and as one who's battled massive depression that pushed to the brink of madness, i can tell you about trouble. You may be mad at others, but is that really just to keep from looking at yourself? I speak from experience, here.
We live in an order set up by previous generations, and those generations simply different fears, values, and concerns. Patriarchy, though, is fearful of change because it may produce chaos, his worst foe, and is therefore loathe to do so. You stare at patriarchy through the lens of equality, a social virtue, but patriarchy stares back at the feminist through the lens of stability, which is a far more basic virtue. The social virtues of patriarchy and equality can coexist, but please realize that when push comes to shove in society, stability must always take precedent; it's not just natural law, but simple common sense.
Once again, I request data on the "oppression," that you speak of, because once again, you sound too general.
Oh? My soul be insulted.
Conservative women (and I know plenty) don't have a problem with it, basically, and those dames a the dojo seem to dig that patriarchal love of hierarchy. Patriarchy offers security, and scads of women don't mind feeling secure in the least. Patriarchy, you see, is a mindset, a toughness, and it's survival-oriented, whereas feminism takes order for granted. If couldn't see it largely as values-clash before, I hope you can now.
If you think I believe men to be adequate stand-ins for women, I don't because we couldn't live with out you, but the concept of role reversals seem to imply women can be adequate stand-ins for men, and that's what worries me because you keep trying to view genders as essentially interchangeable.
Mosty assuredly, but by being inaccurate, and overstating things, it certainly didn't help the author's case, did it?
I think what the author was was saying was disingenuous, or else in turn misled; If it was a statement basically saying that if you graphed the two genders strengthwise, there would be more difference within the differences within those groups between those withe peak strength, and between those with weak strength. Comparing apples to apples, though what this means is that if you compare low ends of the gender spectrum or the high, it will still show a massive gender difference in strength. The women with the most testosterone still get far less than men with the most testosterone, as to be expected.
I, on the other hand, take umbrage when folks distort facts, and basically lie, saying that men aren't stronger than women, citing method out of context. To observe one of your ilk doing something like that gives me a whole new example someone behaving badly to make your point, doesn't it?
Professor Walsh
Feminist slayerette
I feel like the first thing I need to do before posting more in this thread, is to clarify what feminism means to me. I am not an academic feminist. Or, I am, as I am both a feminist and and academic, but my feminism isn't some idea borne out of reading the feminist writers. I keep planning to read Greer, Sontag, Faludi, Walker, Wolf "¦ for some reason, though, they only occasionally make it to the top of my reading list. (A classic that I'd recommend to just about anyone, though, is "Egalia's Daughter's: A Satire of the Sexes"). My feminism stems from growing up in a delightful mixture of academics and what you may call "working class" where political discussions were very much the flavour of the day.
As I grew older, the times came where I asked myself heaps of questions, came up with some answers and realised that the answers created more questions. I suppose that rings true for more people here than just me. I went through rather a long period where I refused to call myself a feminist, as I believed (and to this day believe) in equality, not in feminine superiority. When that is the case, why did I come back to the label "feminist" and made it my own? Well, for one thing: I have a brain. (Kudos to anyone who gets the reference without googling it.) I also have eyes and ears, and am capable of seeing that in the world as a whole, women are still getting the shortest straw time and time and time again. Furthermore, I have sons. I want my sons to grow up in a world where they are free to create their own role in life, whether that means driving long-haul trips bringing fish to Portugal, studying medicine, being the primary caregiver in a family or doing the "Rocky Horror". As a mother of small sons, I see very clearly that girls are free to inhabit the boys' sphere in playgroups to a far broader extent than the boys can inhabit the girls' sphere. Here, at least, a girl who likes ice hockey, motorbikes and Spiderman t-shirts from H&M mostly get kudos for that (even if they can have a hard time in smaller places), whereas a little boy who likes t-shirts with My Little Pony on 'em and to play with dolls frequently is viewed as a little "off". I want all choices (that do not hurt other people) to be equally valid. Let's face it: There's nothing in our biology that makes us more or less drawn to MLP or Spiderman in kindergarten. This is a question of nurture, not nature. Evolution is a slow process. As a matter of fact, if it had worked as fast as some seem to think, the ponies would be a natural choice for the boys "“ horses having been a part of the men's sphere in most of the world for a very long time.
I don't give a rat's arse about the soul of patriarchy. Everyone on this forum is aware that having a soul is no guarantee of a pure-hearted agenda. Any system that is willing to kill people from straying from the path society thinks they should follow is a bad system in my book.
I repped you on this, but it bears repeating as well. I think that cliché is so bloody dangerous. It keeps women choosing men that are flat out dangerous with an idea that the woman's love can somehow change him. I'm all for helping people find out what good lives in them, but not for their partners being killed or destroyed in the process.
There are a lot of feminist in this world, in a lot of countries, therefore feminism comes in several different flavours. A lot of feminists, me included, make no assumptions to that effect that biology has nothing to do with it. I merely argue that the biological differences you see when you study a whooping lot of people shouldn't limit the freedom of choice for the individuals.
Anyway, our modern society is so far removed from what we evolved to handle, that it is hard to say what kind of society our biology "wants us to have". Living under the conditions that Homo sapiens evolved under was hard, physical work where it's quite likely that everyone had to pull their weight on all fronts. Dainty, helpless traits of the kind that passes for "feminine" in some cultures today (not to mention traditions like binding the feet of Chinese women, or wearing corsets so tight that women fainted) would not have aided survival, and would therefore have died out.
Can you remind me which episode this was? I've forgotten all about this.
Well, some of us marry some of us of you. I, for one, found a man who views equality and biology the same way as I do. We are nicely compatible both biologically and politically, something I am very glad of. I could never have lived with a man who wanted me to stay at home shaving my legs and cooking dinner whilst he was out there doing complex man things that he considered me to dainty to take part in.
There will never be a world without struggle. I don't think we'll ever see a world where equality is the rule, either, but as long as there are girls who have to flee the country to avoid their fathers, brothers and uncles killing them off, as long as heart disease is considered a man's disease even though it is one of the main reasons for women's deaths as well, as long as women largely are the poorest of the worlds poor and as long as female foetuses are killed off because people want sons, I'll find the battle for equality worth fighting. Nothing would make me happier than feminism becoming unnecessary, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
A helluva lot of stupid things has been made by scientists madly in love with their theories. Lobotomy, anyone? Uncritical use of psychopharmaca? Or Mengele, if we're talking extremes. That story is one big, fat tragedy, as is the case with several other stories of how children were treated in hospitals earlier. That doesn't mean that all theories on gender and culture done after Kinsey are faulty, any more than the time when lobotomy was in vogue makes me sceptical of all psychiatrists today.
Yes. This. A hundred times this
Sadly, the case is very real.
But you are not patriarchy, are you, any more than prophecygrrl or I are feminism?
Yes, as of last year I am a science teacher, my background is largely from animal science at the university. I haven't read Dr. Amen. I cannot recall if I've ever read how much more testosterone men get than women, even if know for a solid fact that it generally is more. I just argue that it is unacceptable to hold people down due to it. We are not animals.
One last thing, Noitartst: I was a bit baffled when I looked up your profile and noticed that you are (unless you're lying about that) my age. A bloke in his early twenties using such a condescending tone towards a young girl as you've done towards prophecygrrl is uncharming. A bloke fifteen years her senior doing it borders on distasteful. Since you're arguing the case for patriarcy so vehemently, why don't you consider showing some chivalry? After reading just now that you have Aspergers, I am willing to cut you some slack on the debating manners that I normally expect from someone who comes into a forum for the first time in such a hefty way as you have done, but my suggestion still stands: Show some chivalry, if the difference between men and women is so important to you.
As I grew older, the times came where I asked myself heaps of questions, came up with some answers and realised that the answers created more questions. I suppose that rings true for more people here than just me. I went through rather a long period where I refused to call myself a feminist, as I believed (and to this day believe) in equality, not in feminine superiority. When that is the case, why did I come back to the label "feminist" and made it my own? Well, for one thing: I have a brain. (Kudos to anyone who gets the reference without googling it.) I also have eyes and ears, and am capable of seeing that in the world as a whole, women are still getting the shortest straw time and time and time again. Furthermore, I have sons. I want my sons to grow up in a world where they are free to create their own role in life, whether that means driving long-haul trips bringing fish to Portugal, studying medicine, being the primary caregiver in a family or doing the "Rocky Horror". As a mother of small sons, I see very clearly that girls are free to inhabit the boys' sphere in playgroups to a far broader extent than the boys can inhabit the girls' sphere. Here, at least, a girl who likes ice hockey, motorbikes and Spiderman t-shirts from H&M mostly get kudos for that (even if they can have a hard time in smaller places), whereas a little boy who likes t-shirts with My Little Pony on 'em and to play with dolls frequently is viewed as a little "off". I want all choices (that do not hurt other people) to be equally valid. Let's face it: There's nothing in our biology that makes us more or less drawn to MLP or Spiderman in kindergarten. This is a question of nurture, not nature. Evolution is a slow process. As a matter of fact, if it had worked as fast as some seem to think, the ponies would be a natural choice for the boys "“ horses having been a part of the men's sphere in most of the world for a very long time.
I don't give a rat's arse about the soul of patriarchy. Everyone on this forum is aware that having a soul is no guarantee of a pure-hearted agenda. Any system that is willing to kill people from straying from the path society thinks they should follow is a bad system in my book.
I repped you on this, but it bears repeating as well. I think that cliché is so bloody dangerous. It keeps women choosing men that are flat out dangerous with an idea that the woman's love can somehow change him. I'm all for helping people find out what good lives in them, but not for their partners being killed or destroyed in the process.
There are a lot of feminist in this world, in a lot of countries, therefore feminism comes in several different flavours. A lot of feminists, me included, make no assumptions to that effect that biology has nothing to do with it. I merely argue that the biological differences you see when you study a whooping lot of people shouldn't limit the freedom of choice for the individuals.
Anyway, our modern society is so far removed from what we evolved to handle, that it is hard to say what kind of society our biology "wants us to have". Living under the conditions that Homo sapiens evolved under was hard, physical work where it's quite likely that everyone had to pull their weight on all fronts. Dainty, helpless traits of the kind that passes for "feminine" in some cultures today (not to mention traditions like binding the feet of Chinese women, or wearing corsets so tight that women fainted) would not have aided survival, and would therefore have died out.
Can you remind me which episode this was? I've forgotten all about this.
Well, some of us marry some of us of you. I, for one, found a man who views equality and biology the same way as I do. We are nicely compatible both biologically and politically, something I am very glad of. I could never have lived with a man who wanted me to stay at home shaving my legs and cooking dinner whilst he was out there doing complex man things that he considered me to dainty to take part in.
There will never be a world without struggle. I don't think we'll ever see a world where equality is the rule, either, but as long as there are girls who have to flee the country to avoid their fathers, brothers and uncles killing them off, as long as heart disease is considered a man's disease even though it is one of the main reasons for women's deaths as well, as long as women largely are the poorest of the worlds poor and as long as female foetuses are killed off because people want sons, I'll find the battle for equality worth fighting. Nothing would make me happier than feminism becoming unnecessary, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.
A helluva lot of stupid things has been made by scientists madly in love with their theories. Lobotomy, anyone? Uncritical use of psychopharmaca? Or Mengele, if we're talking extremes. That story is one big, fat tragedy, as is the case with several other stories of how children were treated in hospitals earlier. That doesn't mean that all theories on gender and culture done after Kinsey are faulty, any more than the time when lobotomy was in vogue makes me sceptical of all psychiatrists today.
Yes. This. A hundred times this
Sadly, the case is very real.
But you are not patriarchy, are you, any more than prophecygrrl or I are feminism?
Yes, as of last year I am a science teacher, my background is largely from animal science at the university. I haven't read Dr. Amen. I cannot recall if I've ever read how much more testosterone men get than women, even if know for a solid fact that it generally is more. I just argue that it is unacceptable to hold people down due to it. We are not animals.
One last thing, Noitartst: I was a bit baffled when I looked up your profile and noticed that you are (unless you're lying about that) my age. A bloke in his early twenties using such a condescending tone towards a young girl as you've done towards prophecygrrl is uncharming. A bloke fifteen years her senior doing it borders on distasteful. Since you're arguing the case for patriarcy so vehemently, why don't you consider showing some chivalry? After reading just now that you have Aspergers, I am willing to cut you some slack on the debating manners that I normally expect from someone who comes into a forum for the first time in such a hefty way as you have done, but my suggestion still stands: Show some chivalry, if the difference between men and women is so important to you.
T
This Year's Girl
I love, love, LOVE this post and I agree with everything being said in it.
VisionGirl
Newly Human
While this conversation has gone way off course (I really wanted to discuss feminism in Buffy!), it is interesting, and miromurr, thank you for these comments! As a mother of 3 boys, it concerns me as well, and is sometimes a topic of discontent between my husband and I.
---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------
So, what are we doing here as fans of these shows LOL? It is one objection I have to Whedon: this concept is used quite often. Angel, Spike, Xander- all say things to this effect. "You treat me like a man", "You make me feel like a man". And Angel may not have come out & said it, but clearly his life was crap before he met Buffy.
Professor Walsh
Well, clearly we are not above falling for the clichés ourselves ;-) Also, feel free to pull the thread back on track.
P
prophecygrrl
Ooh yes, sorry for derailing! :o We should get back on track. I'd love to hear your thoughts about feminism in BtVS! :D
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
It is very privileged to ask someone to "prove" their oppression to you, and even more so to imply the only “acceptable” oppression is in having been physically raped or abused. And if I were physically hurt in such a way, I am absolutely not obligated to tell you. If you think that my experiences must reach a “reasonable” level of horrible to count as oppression, if you think that I personally need to provide explicit “proof” in order for my concerns to be legitimate, then you need to check your privilege. Because I can tell you about experience. About my own, my peers', my mother's. But I do not need to prove it to you, list out every indignity and fetishize my marginalization for your approval.
I'm seventeen. I'm in high school, not college. But whatever, because I don't think that's really relevant. Having class privilege and First World privilege may (to an extent) mitigate my lack of male privilege, but it does not erase it, not at all.
I am of the belief that there are more than just women and men in this world. Minority genders exist. (Genderqueer individuals, neutrosis people, intersex people who don't identify with either one conventionally accepted gender, etc.) This is why if you read most of my posts (on this thread especially) I am usually very careful to say things like "among genders" or "all genders" instead of "between" and "both". Sometimes I forget to do this, but lately I've tried to be very aware of including all genders when expressing my opinion on gender constructs.
Even if I dismiss your personal narratives, that is not the equivalent of the systematic dismissal of female and minority narratives. I do not believe oppression can be practiced individually, but perpetuated through a system.
If by “social ends” you mean wanting to be treated like human beings, then yes, I would like people to be more socially responsible. It is not selfish to expect to be treated with equal dignity.
I am not judging you. I am not judging individual men. I judge the fact that a standard of acceptable behavior exists for men, just the same as I judge the fact that there is a standard of acceptable behavior and appearance for women. Because, like I said before, if there is a set standard per each gender, there are consequences for people who do not fit the standard. And that is what I'm against.
Patriarchy=stability? For whom? For the people who benefit from it. The rest of us do not find “stability” in our consistent dehumanization, exploitation, and erasure.
What leads you to believe that without patriarchy, chaos would ensue? Why is the supremacy of men (because we're not simply talking about leadership, we are talking about leadership BY men and not by anybody else) necessary?
Conservative women do not speak for all women, and you, as a man, cannot speak for any woman at all...
No role belongs to any one gender in the first place, so no, role reversal does not say that women are *stand-ins* for men, it says that women are capable of doing what culturally only men are allowed to do, and it says that men are capable of doing what culturally only women are seen fit to do. So yes, this goes back to what I was saying about BtVS. Role reversal has progressive value, IMO.
“Ilk”? Respect is a two way street, please.
Come on guys, back on topic! There's been one warning already, if it continues, we'll close.
The thread is to discuss feminism within Buffy. I think there's other feminism threads around where you could take this, or start a new one if need be, so this can get back on topic 🙂
The thread is to discuss feminism within Buffy. I think there's other feminism threads around where you could take this, or start a new one if need be, so this can get back on topic 🙂
"Family".
I am kind of confused - why are you putting Xander in the same category as Spike and Angel? He wasn't really changed by love, was he? Nor was he a "bad boy".
Professor Walsh
Right - I don't have S5 on dvd, so haven't watched that in years (even if I still cite it as being a favourite of mine). Thanks.
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
In 'Into the Woods', Xander says to Anya: "You make me feel like I've never felt before in my life. Like a man."
He didn't really start off as a bad boy, but I think he was changed by by his relationship with Anya.
As someone who has dealt with mass depression, I know what pain is, and it's not necessarily at the hand of others, but since you claim to have been abused by patriarchy, I want to know how, and started listing the most visible examples.
And if I were physically hurt in such a way, I am absolutely not obligated to tell you. [/QUOTE]
Agreed; I have talked to women who were, and didn't press that subject because frankly, I didn't want to know. Here, it's a little different, though, because it's an intellectual debate.
Fair enough, I think.
Masculinity is a burden, friend; yes, it comes with certain privileges, but it's a two-way street. Feminists may hate Freud for it, but when you talk like that, his theory of penis envy assumes greater traction.
It's hard to be a man, and while I'm glad I am, I've got an inordinate amount of responsibilities and expectations which counter-balance. Feminism doesn't seem to factor in the nuances at all, though.
That's because Mother Nature ain't a perfect cook, and we get oddballs. I have Aspergers, and am also a lefty so I can talk as one, but I'm fortunately not so sexually. Misfits don't fit the overall pattern, and that's a hassle. Just don't assume there's no overall pattern because misfits exist--I kind of find that condescending.
Pray don't be politically correct--it does not become.
At seventeen years you've been "oppressed," though? That's genuinely hard to swallow.
Well, I'm arguing with you aren't I? I disagree, but I consider that a mark of my respect.
And why in the world should there be a genderless standard if indeed we are indeed different? On some areas, yes, like legally. for murder and the like, it should be the same, but in social settings, expectations will never be the same. Norms have changed allowing women to be more like men, and yet you are not men. No amount of flexibility can change it.
Patriarchy considers the good of society as a whole, regardless of whether you think patriarchy utterly selfish. That you think patriarchy is a cad is your point of view, and certain not patriarchy's. For its part, patriarchy thinks feminism a pack of silly, angry and confused dames.
You keep thinking about patriarchy in terms of gender struggle, but patriarchy doesn't see things that way. You keep assuming you know patriarchy's mind, and you have judged its character, but I simply don't think you know what you're talking about.
True, I can't, but I can observe, and most women aren't against patriarchy. They're against masculine abuse, they want to be respected, they don't want to be harassed, and all these are reasonable requests.
Most women don't speak with the attitude and ideology of gender war, either. In fiction, there's such gender competition, and there isn't in real life, and that's what I can't stand.
Wouldn't you say that some roles better fit men biologically, and some fit women, biologically? If you can, then I think we have nothing left to fight over, and can reach some common ground.
"Ilk," is an arcane, or unusal, way of referring to companionship, fraternity, or something like that. I wasn't trying to provoke, here, I don't think.
---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 PM ----------
Indeed; that is one reason while I fail to see why feminists are so unsatisfied.
You keep giving patriarchy evil motives, and that's the problem. I never said patriarchy is perfect, but its psychology is much more consientious than you think, even if it's mistaken.
I certainly won't argue about that.
I think I'll tentatively agree here, but when it comes to ramming change down everyone's throats, well, that's what I'm against.Men can nurture, but just because we can, it doesn't mean we have the aptitude for it like like women, I'm merely saying we should take biological realities into account within our social structure, like societies traditionally have.
'Twas the first half of the fifth seson, sometime. I think they were house shopping or something.
Well, society does indeed change.
Don't forget though, that patriarchy fights for stability, and it's a more primary virtue than equality.
YOu seem to think I'm not treating you as human, then? That gets me, because the many reason I'm against feminism is not because I'm for bullying, but against it, and am so in all its forms.
Agreed.
Agreed, but it still makes us different, and I am against people claiming other in the name of "equality."
Didn't know, didn't check; played mainly by ear, I did.
More like I'm arguing to understand patriarchy, actually.
Chivalry? Isn't that old-fashioned? If I did that, wouldn't Prophecygrrl see me as something other than a chauvinist pig? Society is wonderfully malleable, and amorphous, and no offense, but I think she is more capable of speaking out about how she wishes to be treated than you. We've maintained a rather long dialog without descending into name-calling, so I think that says something positive, and if you watched carefully, I think you would see I've made adjustment along the way.
Professor Walsh
Feminist slayerette
Ok, I'll toe the line
To pull the debate back to the topic of feminism in Buffy, do you think that it was wrong of Buffy (and Giles) to refuse to work within the boundaries set by the Watcher's Council? Should she, for the sake of stability, have continued to follow their rules?
Sometimes, instability is necessary for development to happen.
I could not disagree more.
Couldn't agree more about the last line.
For me breaking free of the Watcher's council was one of the healthiest things Buffy did on the show and though the Watcher's council had some benefits (guiding young Slayers and potentials) they were in dire need of a good thwack on the nose because by our Buffy's time they had grown far too self-important to be of much use to Buffy as an individual. (The big picture is great, they can keep that in their sights all they want, but it seemed like they were for the most time using that as a means to control and subjugate for their own purposes which is a far less admirable quality, even if it is 'for the greater good', because whoever said their greater good was the right one?)
You do? Why? Doesn't history show you that order and stability is more important than the quality of that order? Is not calling for equality unconditionally placing the cart before the horse? You simply can't have social equality without order, but you can have order without equality. Society seeks both, but it as it needs stability, and if equality is a luxury by comparison, stability is therefore of greater importance.
They made the Watcher's Council stereotypical archetypes, and I hate that. Within the show, it made sense, I distrust the how, and why, they set it up.
I hate intellectual bullying, ya know. It gets me that feminists make such a big deal about the female action hero, but there's one genre of protagonist they don't seem to have cracked, and it's the Lovable Loser. I grew up on Fred Flintstone, Yogi Bear, Donald Duck, and Charlie Brown, among other variations, and and while Peanuts is a masterwork of it, as a whole I got tired, and the only possible female equivalent of the lovable loser I can think of offhand is Lucile Ball, and I never liked her show.
Note I'm mainly citing cartoons, but look at some of the humor from the Cosby show between Cliff and his wife. It's okay, as a rule of thumb, in comedy for the woman to get the harsh the last word, but not the man. This irks me.
Look, I'm not trying to bash on women here, I just am looking for a little rejoinder in a lopsided fight, a little re-invigoration of of a longstanding creative formula. I loathe Goslin from Darkwing Duck; I absolutely hate Jade from Jackie Chan Adventures, and thats because they're obnoxious! They don't respect authority, and that authority is treated as an absolute joke! Those one-sided cheapshots anger me, and I hope I'm not alone.
I'm not complaining about a lack of female losers, here, mind ya, but instead, I'm bashing tired storytelling congruent with feminist values. Feminists, you say that you seek equality, but I see no desire on your part to make such folks equal opportunity, do I?
Making people losers in fiction limits them, limits storytelling, and for me at least limits enjoyment, and that's because thre's no growth. I stopped watching the Sopranos in the third season when I realized that the characters weren't going to go anywhere, and the series message was one of despair, and such was unworthy of the depth of these characters. Yes, Tony was a gangster, but that didn't mean he wasn't dynamic, but suddenly all the organic progress started to unnaturally cycle, and it frustrated, so if it can happen on a brilliant show like the Sopranos, it can happen anywhere.
On another note, Spike's "you treat me like a man," comment was brought up, and I think that was an unearned comment in the extreme put there by the writers. Buffy hadn't treated him like a man at all, and it was therefore annoying to hear.
Then again, in places wheres feminist thinking resides, there's a ton of contradictions, aren't there? Elsewhere on this thread, I've been told to act "chivalrous" by a feminist, but that's not about treating a woman as an equal, but treating her "as a woman." I guess that's emblematic of Buffy as a show, trying to on the one hand tell a blame good story, and on the other, adhere to contemporary sensibilities, even if combining the two is akin to mixing oil and water.
As for the point about instability being necessary for development to happen, and while it may seem to conflict with what I said earlier, I totally agree.
Here's the problem. Yes, society and evolution are both two things that will constantly seek stability. However, stability (as with everything else) comes at the cost of something. Usually equality. (which yes is a luxury but that does not make it insignificant)
Societal stability will always been in a slow transitional phase for this reason. One elements stability rests on the shoulders of something else. But as an unequally treated element will resist it's place, stability is no more than a fleeting period.
Through millenia we have seen society go through numerous, constant changes for this reason and what makes us think that this would have changed by now? We have reached a new kind of 'stability' sure but in a hundred years a new one maybe have taken it's place... because that' what happens. Change is constant as well as necessary.
I'll quote Dawkins to prove my point because I find his word applicable here:
"There is a transitional period of instability, terminating in a new evolutionarily stable set - a little bit of evolution has occured"
Well I wouldn't call myself a feminist (other than being female myself) because I can't say I've never been active in the fight for a feminine agenda and I agree about your point about the "Loveable loser"
Also yes, I do a lot of the time find feminist agenda lacking in equality itself but y'know to me that basically just says that it took more than one day to build Rome. Big changes or topics come first, fine tuning comes later...
She trusted him with the most important thing in her life - Dawn. But I certainly agree that to me that line was said far too prematurely as well and first time around I was very annoyed to hear it.
I get the gestured behind it but I have to say it felt rushed.
Okay "where feminist thinking resides" that's kind of putting us all in one boat. All females or feminists will thinking differently and just like within any area there will be contradictions.
I for example snort at chivarly. I have a best friend whom I would describe incredibly chivalrous (a proper southern gentleman ;P) and I constantly tease him for it because to me the whole concept is dated.
Perhaps it isn't to someone else. Perhaps chivarly to some just translates to "manners" and "being polite" - we all have different definitions. To you chivarly clearly has negative connotations and I can certainly see why because to me it does as well. Explained by others (such as my friend) I see what he means by it and it's far from the negative interpreations that instantly springs to my mind.
But this isn't related to BtVs so I'll leave this line of thought for now 🙂
So yeah, see top of my post then ;P