Warren shouldn't be hated as much as he is

[Priceless]

CRT fans are racist and the point they are making is based on race eg WHITE women crying are "dangerous" to BLACK men, though they tend to avoid the question if you reverse it eg is a BLACK woman crying "dangerous" to WHITE men. CRT fans believe black people are victims because they're black and will never be anything other than a victim.

I am not a fan of CRT but I think their argument is that white women's tears have gotten black men hung. The reverse cannot be said to have happened to white men, in fact it could be argued that white men have been encouraged to hurt black women, and no notice was taken of their tears.

The point I'm making is that women do have certain advantages that men do not due to how society views the roles of men and women. Men are supposed to be "protectors" of women, therefore a man not doing that eg making a woman cry is seen as a failure in his duty as a man. It's also why domestic abuse cases can be very one sided eg a woman is more likely to report being abused by a man than a man is to report being abused by a woman. Just look at the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp saga- she cries wolf, he gets blackballed and dropped from movies and franchises. She even told him nobody would believe him because he's a man and she's a woman. The truth emerges that she's the actual abuser, media goes quiet, she's still employed and he's still on the outs with major Hollywood studios.

What advantages do women have over men in society? Yes they have given birth to every person on earth, but that's been controlled by men, and is still being controlled by men. Men are seen as 'protectors' only if those women are seen as deserving of protection, which of course is a decision left to the men.

I know nothing about Jonny Depp or Amber Heard's relationship so can't comment. I would say that as a woman I am not going to waste my time defending rich and powerful men.

In regards to Warren, we don't know what his background was like growing up, we don't see his parents marriage, it could've been as abusive as Xander's. For all we know Warren's mom could've pulled the manipulative tears tricks. Children tend to end up with the mothers during divorce than they are the fathers so Warren's mother having custody doesn't necessarily reflect the virtues of her character. On the other hand, crying is emotional blackmail could've been something his father told him. Again it's pure conjecture because we know nothing of Warren's background. The point I'm making is that there could be legitimate reasons for why Warren associates crying with emotional blackmail that have nothing to do with misogyny and more to do with his upbringing. Presumably he never told Katrina she wasn't allowed to cry as it was emotional blackmail. It's probably safe to say that Katrina was his first girlfriend therefore he grew as a person between creating April and the time IWMTLY rolls around. Just because Warren held that view pre-Katrina, again possibly due to factors in his upbringing, doesn't mean he still holds that view post-Katrina.

For all we know Warren could have grown up in a nice middle class home with all the amenities. So what? I don't believe it gives man an excuse to treat women badly. At least with Xander we saw where he came from and although I'm not a fan, I can sort of understand that seeing his father abuse his mother taught him that to be a man he too had to abuse women. I think we can infer that Warren still thinks badly of women because he attempted to rape Katrina and eventually murdered her and felt no guilt about it.

Also Katrina doesn't seem like the type of woman that would want to be in a relationship with a misogynist. She and Warren were staying together at his mom's house. Either she's meeting his mom for the first time or she's already met her in which case they've crossed a big milestone in their relationship. Misogynists don't tend to have healthy equal footing relationships with women, least of all strong intelligent women like Katrina. Therefore either Katrina is a strong woman and Warren isn't a misogynist, or he is a misogynist and Katrina is not a strong intelligent woman, they can't be both.

Two to three women a week are murdered in the UK by their partners or exes, I bet their families would say they weren't the sort of women who would marry a psychopath. I mean, what sort of woman does end up with a psycho? It's not because a woman was weak or stupid that she ends up being killed by these men, it's the anger and entitlement of men. I believe a woman can be strong and intelligent and still end up with a wife beating bastard.

Non-abusive women don't tell men not to do it. Abusive women, on the other hand, would infer that a man crying makes him less of a man.

Again, there are societal expectations that differ between men and women that still persist today. If a man makes a woman cry, he's a jerk. If a woman makes a man cry, he's a "wuss" and clearly can't handle the opinions of "strong" women. Modern day feminism is less about equality and more about hating on men, especially straight white ones.

You are probably right that there are some women who think a man crying makes him less of a man, and that's sad. But I would say that most women in committed relationships with men would be pretty supportive of their partners if they became emotional. But even if the woman turned around and told him he was a wuss, that doesn't mean she deserves to be punched, kicked, raped or murdered.

What's that famous Atwood line 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will murder them' (probs misquoted, but you get the gist)

I thought he told her to shut her mouth in the house then immediately tried to backtrack? It's been a while since I've seen the episode but I always thought he snapped at her in a moment of stress eg he'd kept April a secret, now it was all coming out in the open. He wouldn't be the first person to say something in the heat of the moment then instantly regret it.

You are absolutely right, I was thinking of the other scene.

 

[r2dh2]

Two to three women a week are murdered in the UK by their partners or exes, I bet their families would say they weren't the sort of women who would marry a psychopath. I mean, what sort of woman does end up with a psycho? It's not because a woman was weak or stupid that she ends up being

In my home country, 9 to 10 women are murdered per day on average and 40% of women have suffered some form of sexual assault. I left in my early 20s and it was already a chauvinistic society, but in the last 15 years it became something unfathomable. How and when we got there? I'm not sure. But the worst part is seeing "educated" men (doctors, lawyers, professors) make comments that justify this degree of gender violence: "women flirt all the time attempting to manipulate and then they complain for being murdered," "they should know better before dating and marrying those type of men," "if there is a women's day where they go out to protest, we should do the same and go out to get drunk and act out" (protests have become something common due the high number of feminicides and the lack of an appropriate response), "they should go back to the kitchen where they belong instead of protesting in the streets," "I'd kidnap one or two of their (feminist) leaders and torture them until I know who is paying them to stage these protests." I won't comment more on this topic because it literately hits close to home, but these are some of the consequences of a society dominated by misogynistic mindsets.

Edit: I feel sad, ashamed and deeply scared. I have a mother, aunts, nieces, cousins, female friends... we shouldn't live like this. Not in 2021, not anywhere in the world.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

The "crying is manipulation" thing is misogynistic because it is a man (Warren) saying a woman's feelings are all about him and how he feels about it, rather than that a woman is a fully-realized human being with her own emotions and a right to express them. I take the point that Warren may have been brought up a certain way, but I feel certain that the writers put in that line to indicate his misogyny and thinking that a woman is just a thing to serve a man's desires, and has no right to do anything that makes him uncomfortable, because it's all about him.

As for Katrina, I believe Warren's comment to her included "get back in the kitchen." She may have been a strong woman, but Warren couldn't handle that, and they surely would have broken up eventually because of that.

Just looked up the transcript:

WARREN: (to Buffy) Is this about her?
BUFFY: Yes.
KATRINA: Her who? Warren, something's going on here. Strange girls...
WARREN: Katrina, please be quiet, okay, this is important. Wait in the kitchen.
KATRINA: And I'm not important? Warren, just tell her to go away.
WARREN: (looks at Buffy) I can't.
KATRINA: You're keeping secrets from me. Other girls, and who knows what else?
WARREN: Trina, shut up.
KATRINA: That's it. Forget it, Warren. I'm gone.
She walks out past Buffy and away.
WARREN: No, Katrina! Ahhh...

He tells Katrina to wait in the kitchen but he's not being rude about it. The kitchen would've just been a different room on the same floor. I think the issue is more external connotations aka the association of the kitchen with patriarchy rather than an in-show one eg Warren didn't tell Katrina to go to the kitchen because he thinks that's where she "belongs". It was just a different room that was out of earshot of him and Buffy. Warren telling Katrina to shut up is him in panic mode and isn't the best time for her to be chipping in.

WARREN: You know, she got boring. (Buffy rolls her eyes) She was exactly what I wanted, and I didn't want her. (laughs crazily) I thought I was going crazy.
BUFFY: Really? You?
WARREN: Then something happened. (sits next to her) Katrina was in my engineering seminar, and she was really funny and cool. You know, she was always givin' me a hard time, real ... unpredictable. She builds these little model monorails that run with magnets, and ... (pauses, looks at Buffy) Anyway. (shrugs) I fell in love with Katrina.
BUFFY: Swell. Romance and magnetic trains. But first you decided to take April out of the box...
Cut to April still walking.
BUFFY VOICEOVER: ...play with her for five minutes, and then what? You got bored, decided to dump her, tell her to go away?

Here's the thing. April is a robot, not a real woman, and needs to be seen as an individual case and not a representation of the collective. How Warren treats April is bad in that it became a no-win scenario for her, no matter what she did, Warren couldn't love her. However, in fairness to Warren, look what happened when he did do the right thing and told April he didn't love her, she went into combat mode. If Buffy hadn't been there to engage in a fight, what would April have done to Warren after he told her he didn't love her? We saw what she did to Katrina, so Warren abandoning her in the hopes of her battery running down, whilst a dick move, was probably the safer outcome especially as he apparently he didn't program in a power down protocol.

He said he fell in love with Katrina because of her unpredictability, that would come with the full range of emotions. If Warren was all about having a women serve him and be all about what he wants then it wouldn't make sense for him to ditch April who was all those things and take up with Katrina who was the complete opposite. Whilst the creation of April in the first place is in itself morally suspect, she is just a robot and not a real woman which means there is an element of non-reality surrounding her in-show. It's like how people can enjoy a villainous character in a movie/ tv show or even a "heroic" character who does morally reprehensible things but would never support that type of person in real life. Games like Grand Theft Auto enables players to engage in criminal behaviour in-game but those same players would never dream of doing the same thing in real life. There's a proper term for that which I can't think of right now but @TriBel would probably know what it's called. My point is how Warren programmed April isn't necessarily how he would treat a real woman in real life. As we see in IWMTLY, he's happy that Katrina is his girlfriend and he likes how unpredictable she is.

However, the original question was, why do we hate Warren? And it's absolutely true that we accept bad behavior, even misogyny, on the parts of other characters because they are presented more sympathetically. We are not shown much of Warren from his own point of view (and certainly not how his upbringing may have affected him, unlike Xander), just from the outside. So there perhaps is a certain irony that his character is subject to "the viewer's gaze" rather than being given scenes from his own POV.

I think writers often try to dictate the narrative to viewers and basically manipulate them into feeling what the writers want them to feel. It's how we get scenes like the Buffy/Riley ultimatum scene in Into The Woods where the writers are clearly Team Riley and expect the audience to be too but the audience then goes the other way. I think we see this happen with Kennedy, the writers clearly expected the audience to like her and instead viewers absolutely hated her. I think Warren suffers from this in some ways, the writers want the audience to view him a certain way, even though he doesn't do anything worse than what some of the other character do that the writers want the audience to feel sympathy for.

I am not a fan of CRT but I think their argument is that white women's tears have gotten black men hung. The reverse cannot be said to have happened to white men, in fact it could be argued that white men have been encouraged to hurt black women, and no notice was taken of their tears.

That may have been true pre-1960s, it is not true in 2021, and that is the main problem with CRT proponents, they act as if we're still in the pre-civil rights movement era and ignore all the progress that has been made since. It's like saying Gunn is in mortal danger whenever Fred gets a bit teary because she is a white woman and he a black man, therefore whenever she cries she is attempting to have him murdered. It's ridiculous.

What advantages do women have over men in society? Yes they have given birth to every person on earth, but that's been controlled by men, and is still being controlled by men. Men are seen as 'protectors' only if those women are seen as deserving of protection, which of course is a decision left to the men.

Men are expected to pay on the first date. Most women would be happy to pay their share, but if a man pulled the "oops forgot my wallet, can you pay?" trick, you can almost guarantee he won't get a second date. Men were also expected to die for their country during World War 1 and a man who avoided service was seen as a coward (this was before women were allowed to fight on the front lines). On Titanic, the call was for "women and children first", men were expected to sacrifice their lives so that women and children could escape the sinking ship and they were expected to accept this. In a situation where a man is harassing a woman, other men are expected to step in and help her by telling the man to back off and to deal with it if things escalate. I included the World War 1 and Titanic examples because they occurred when society was decidedly more "patriarchal" than it is today. Also if a man is accused of something by a woman, he is automatically deemed guilty in the court of public opinion without any evidence, all on the say so of a woman. It's why "believe all women" is such a dangerous notion because it elevates the word of one person based on their gender over the word of another person, regardless of if there is any truth to the claim.

There are perks to being a man and there are drawbacks, just like there are perks to being a woman and there are drawbacks. These perks and drawbacks are different for both men and women and even individuals of either gender. One individual's experience does not represent the experience of the collective.

Also men don't tend to take too kindly to wife beaters.

I know nothing about Jonny Depp or Amber Heard's relationship so can't comment. I would say that as a woman I am not going to waste my time defending rich and powerful men.

So you're saying that, because you are a woman, you are not going to support a victim of domestic abuse because he is a man who made a good living as an actor over decades? What if the genders were reversed?

What does the fact that you're a woman have to do with anything? Does it mean you're not allowed to defend someone if they're a different gender to you?

Without going too far down the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard rabbit hole, being a woman shouldn't have any bearing on who you do and don't defend for whatever reason there may be. Gender shouldn't dictate how people think.

For all we know Warren could have grown up in a nice middle class home with all the amenities. So what? I don't believe it gives man an excuse to treat women badly. At least with Xander we saw where he came from and although I'm not a fan, I can sort of understand that seeing his father abuse his mother taught him that to be a man he too had to abuse women. I think we can infer that Warren still thinks badly of women because he attempted to rape Katrina and eventually murdered her and felt no guilt about it.

So by the same token, Faith's upbringing doesn't give her an excuse to treat men like she does.

Two to three women a week are murdered in the UK by their partners or exes, I bet their families would say they weren't the sort of women who would marry a psychopath. I mean, what sort of woman does end up with a psycho? It's not because a woman was weak or stupid that she ends up being killed by these men, it's the anger and entitlement of men. I believe a woman can be strong and intelligent and still end up with a wife beating bastard.

Katrina clearly wasn't in an abusive relationship with Warren, she wasn't scared to leave him, and the moment he spoke to her in a less than polite way eg telling her to shut up, she was off. Most abusive relationships turn abusive over time, there is always the honeymoon period that lures the victim in then the abuser begins cutting the victim off from friends and family emotionally and often geographically, makes them financially dependent on the abuser by controlling the household funds and makes it difficult for the victim to leave. Kids are often used as a tool for getting the victim to stay. Abuse victims are often scared to leave their abusive partner because of threats of what will happen if they try. What are the statistics for men? How many men are living in abusive relationships that are unreported? How many male suicides are the result of abusive relationships?

Just because you have statistics for one group, and those statistics are terrible, doesn't mean there isn't statistics for the other group. Statistics only show the known cases, not necessarily every case, and that goes for either gender.

You are probably right that there are some women who think a man crying makes him less of a man, and that's sad. But I would say that most women in committed relationships with men would be pretty supportive of their partners if they became emotional. But even if the woman turned around and told him he was a wuss, that doesn't mean she deserves to be punched, kicked, raped or murdered.

If a woman is telling a man he's a wuss for crying, then she is obviously not in fear of being "punched, kicked, raped or murdered" as a domestic abuse victim. Abuse victims don't go out of their way to provoke their abuser, they want to keep their abuser happy so they don't suffer any violence as a result.

In my home country, 9 to 10 women are murdered per day on average and 40% of women have suffered some form of sexual assault.

What's your home country? Context is important.

 

[Stake fodder]

He tells Katrina to wait in the kitchen but he's not being rude about it. The kitchen would've just been a different room on the same floor. I think the issue is more external connotations aka the association of the kitchen with patriarchy rather than an in-show one eg Warren didn't tell Katrina to go to the kitchen because he thinks that's where she "belongs".

Well, I thought so, too, the first time I watched that episode, that Warren just wanted Katrina out of the way. But the second time, I felt the writers chose "kitchen" deliberately, to say something about Warren. Thanks for finding the actual quote.

April is a robot, not a real woman, and needs to be seen as an individual case and not a representation of the collective. How Warren treats April is bad in that it became a no-win scenario for her, no matter what she did, Warren couldn't love her. However, in fairness to Warren, look what happened when he did do the right thing and told April he didn't love her, she went into combat mode. If Buffy hadn't been there to engage in a fight, what would April have done to Warren after he told her he didn't love her? We saw what she did to Katrina, so Warren abandoning her in the hopes of her battery running down, whilst a dick move, was probably the safer outcome especially as he apparently he didn't program in a power down protocol.

He said he fell in love with Katrina because of her unpredictability, that would come with the full range of emotions. If Warren was all about having a women serve him and be all about what he wants then it wouldn't make sense for him to ditch April who was all those things and take up with Katrina who was the complete opposite. Whilst the creation of April in the first place is in itself morally suspect, she is just a robot and not a real woman which means there is an element of non-reality surrounding her in-show.

I do agree that it's interesting that we (are meant to) sympathize with April, who is a robot programmed to mimic feelings, but doesn't really have them. (And yet many of us do not like Dawn, also initially 'programmed' with false feelings and memories!) But then, it still comes back to Warren for programming her to be dangerous, or at least not foreseeing those outcomes of what he programmed.

I also agree that what we see of Warren and Katrina's initial relationship is not abusive. But I don't think Warren's treatment of Katrina in this episode can be taken out of context of their entire relationship (what we see of it), in which he clearly becomes abusive and controlling after she leaves him.

 

[thrasherpix]

Gender has a lot less to do with much of the above than those (male and female) who want to divide men against women.

Just as an example, a man who displays violent anger issues, or enjoys making someone cry, or even just interrupts and bullies, is likely to do so to men as to women...more likely to men, both because he doesn't want to drive women away and also because he'll be a lot less likely called on it by other men if he targets men (save by those he targets, which he probably chose because he felt there was little they could do against him).

Women can also target both genders, and less likely to be called on it by either men and women, at least in today's society generally speaking (and not including the involvement of powerful religious and political factions).

And anyone who doesn't show emotions, especially those of vulnerability or grief, often causes those close to them to feel cut off. That hurts whether you're a man or a woman. ('Course others, not just men, don't want to be bothered or inconvenienced. Given that there are all too many real life examples of Ted & Joyce relationships, not counting the robotic part, many mothers would shut their daughters down fast if the daughter cried.)


Though I remember now something that haunts me to this day (almost 20 years later). An older guy I was close to in a platonic way discovered his cat of over 10 years was dead. He said so in surprise, and I feel like with a feeling of betrayal. (He'd just brought some medicine home to help his cat, but now it was too late.) Without showing emotion he wrapped the cat up in a towel and took him down to the basement as it was too late to bury him that day.

He was perfectly calm, but while down there, me and his aunt heard him give out the most anguished sob of grief so intense that it brought tears to our eyes.

He came back up the stairs, not a tear in his eye, and we never said anything and pretended our tears were for the cat rather than him. We wanted to protect his dignity and thought if he wanted our comfort then he'd seek it.

I wonder now if we did him a disservice. Holding it in, to "be a man," is killing way too many men. That's just one of the ways it's worse to be a man.

If he were a women then a great many men and women, and support groups, would be all too eager to help him, er, her. We wouldn't have pretended not to hear and given hugs and support. His pain would not a burden to add to all the other burdens he carried inside without release (something that I'm sure drives many men to violence just as it drives men and women both to suicide).

Men and women have their own problems, of course, though a surprising number are shared by both in just slightly different ways. Too bad the internet has done more to fuel the flames of division rather than fostering understanding and compassion between people of different demographics.

 

[Priceless]

That may have been true pre-1960s, it is not true in 2021, and that is the main problem with CRT proponents, they act as if we're still in the pre-civil rights movement era and ignore all the progress that has been made since. It's like saying Gunn is in mortal danger whenever Fred gets a bit teary because she is a white woman and he a black man, therefore whenever she cries she is attempting to have him murdered. It's ridiculous.

You're making me 'defend' CRT and I don't like it. You are right, we don't live in the 1960's, but even today I think if a white woman tells the police that a black man has hurt her, she will get a different response than if she says a white man hurt her. Imagine Fred reporting Gunn to the cops, now imagine her reporting Wesley. Now imagine Kendra reporting Gunn. I think different people are treated differently by the police for the same 'crimes'. I personally hate the fact that women are blamed for men's racism or men's crimes, but I do also see what CRT is trying to say (though saying it very badly and being scarily sexist about it)

Men are expected to pay on the first date. Most women would be happy to pay their share, but if a man pulled the "oops forgot my wallet, can you pay?" trick, you can almost guarantee he won't get a second date. Men were also expected to die for their country during World War 1 and a man who avoided service was seen as a coward (this was before women were allowed to fight on the front lines). On Titanic, the call was for "women and children first", men were expected to sacrifice their lives so that women and children could escape the sinking ship and they were expected to accept this. In a situation where a man is harassing a woman, other men are expected to step in and help her by telling the man to back off and to deal with it if things escalate. I included the World War 1 and Titanic examples because they occurred when society was decidedly more "patriarchal" than it is today. Also if a man is accused of something by a woman, he is automatically deemed guilty in the court of public opinion without any evidence, all on the say so of a woman. It's why "believe all women" is such a dangerous notion because it elevates the word of one person based on their gender over the word of another person, regardless of if there is any truth to the claim.

There are perks to being a man and there are drawbacks, just like there are perks to being a woman and there are drawbacks. These perks and drawbacks are different for both men and women and even individuals of either gender. One individual's experience does not represent the experience of the collective.

Also men don't tend to take too kindly to wife beaters.

Paying for a first date is such a minor thing, but agree, a man is expected to pay. Yes men are expected to die for their country (as are women nowadays), but is that balanced out by saying well they do start all the wars, so . . . 😀 Plus men are of course physically stronger and when wars were fought face to face in actual battles, it made much more sense to send the men. Also men have testosterone, the male hormone which makes them naturally more aggressive and eager to fight.

Unfortunately it isn't true that when a man is accused of a crime against a woman he is immediately thought guilty. In the year to the end of March 2020, 58,856 cases of rape were recorded by police forces in England and Wales.
These led to just 2,102 prosecutions, compared with 3,043 in the previous 12 months. Prosecutions for rape are falling year on year. And that's only the prosecutions, that does not mean it led to a guilty verdict. That means that if you think only those that lead to prosecution, the women were telling the truth, you are suggesting that 56,754 women lied to the police about being raped. 56,754 women a year are going to the police and lying. Does that seem remotely possible? Most feminist orgs now declare rape in the UK a non-crime because prosecutions are so rare. In reality men are believed far more than women when it comes to crimes against women.

There are a lot of perks to being a woman, definitely. But we have to understand that most violent crime 98% is committed by men on men and women. If they just killed/maimed/raped themselves I wouldn't care so much 😄 And I'm not saying it's all men. Some men are lovely.

So you're saying that, because you are a woman, you are not going to support a victim of domestic abuse because he is a man who made a good living as an actor over decades? What if the genders were reversed?

What does the fact that you're a woman have to do with anything? Does it mean you're not allowed to defend someone if they're a different gender to you?

Without going too far down the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard rabbit hole, being a woman shouldn't have any bearing on who you do and don't defend for whatever reason there may be. Gender shouldn't dictate how people think.

Yes. Ok it's complicated. On one hand of course I care about victims of domestic abuse no matter their sex, but on the other hand . . . I'm a feminist and women are predominantly the victims of domestic violence and need more support. Depp is rich, famous, loved. He'll be fine. If i have to expend my energy fighting for the rich and famous, I'd rather fight for Britney Spears, who has been abused by the courts, by her own father, by the media etc. for years.

So by the same token, Faith's upbringing doesn't give her an excuse to treat men like she does.

No it definitely does not. But I would say 'Faith's upbringing doesn't give her the excuse to treat anyone like she does'

Katrina clearly wasn't in an abusive relationship with Warren, she wasn't scared to leave him, and the moment he spoke to her in a less than polite way eg telling her to shut up, she was off. Most abusive relationships turn abusive over time, there is always the honeymoon period that lures the victim in then the abuser begins cutting the victim off from friends and family emotionally and often geographically, makes them financially dependent on the abuser by controlling the household funds and makes it difficult for the victim to leave. Kids are often used as a tool for getting the victim to stay. Abuse victims are often scared to leave their abusive partner because of threats of what will happen if they try. What are the statistics for men? How many men are living in abusive relationships that are unreported? How many male suicides are the result of abusive relationships?

Just because you have statistics for one group, and those statistics are terrible, doesn't mean there isn't statistics for the other group. Statistics only show the known cases, not necessarily every case, and that goes for either gender.

We didn't see Warren and Katrina's relationship. We don't really know what it was like prior to this episode.

Here's some stats on male abuse victims.

Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse -

But remember, some of these men will be in a same sex relationship, so being abused by other men.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

You're making me 'defend' CRT and I don't like it. You are right, we don't live in the 1960's, but even today I think if a white woman tells the police that a black man has hurt her, she will get a different response than if she says a white man hurt her. Imagine Fred reporting Gunn to the cops, now imagine her reporting Wesley. Now imagine Kendra reporting Gunn. I think different people are treated differently by the police for the same 'crimes'. I personally hate the fact that women are blamed for men's racism or men's crimes, but I do also see what CRT is trying to say (though saying it very badly and being scarily sexist about it)

I disagree. CRT proponents basically say the mere act of a white woman (Fred) crying near a black man (Gunn) would be enough to get him lynched, even though lynching doesn't happen nowadays because this isn't the 1960s. Is it possible that some individuals may endure racism? Sure, but it is not "systemic" which is what the CRT proponents are saying. Most cops aren't racist which is where the whole "if a white woman said a black man hurt her, she'd get a different response than if she said a white man hurt her" falls down. There are tons of factors involved that can lead to certain outcomes, skin colour isn't and shouldn't be one of them.

I do think we should maybe try to move on from this particular topic as it is a bit dicey as to whether it's veering into political territory or not and neither of us want to get in trouble with the mods 😛

Unfortunately it isn't true that when a man is accused of a crime against a woman he is immediately thought guilty.

I disagree. If a male celebrity is accused then the court of public opinion tends to think he's guilty until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone thinks he's guilty but he will certainly be treated as guilty by the media and social media.

In the year to the end of March 2020, 58,856 cases of rape were recorded by police forces in England and Wales.
These led to just 2,102 prosecutions, compared with 3,043 in the previous 12 months. Prosecutions for rape are falling year on year. And that's only the prosecutions, that does not mean it led to a guilty verdict. That means that if you think only those that lead to prosecution, the women were telling the truth, you are suggesting that 56,754 women lied to the police about being raped. 56,754 women a year are going to the police and lying. Does that seem remotely possible? Most feminist orgs now declare rape in the UK a non-crime because prosecutions are so rare. In reality men are believed far more than women when it comes to crimes against women.

I'd say a small minority of those cases were probably false accusations but certainly not all of them. The problem with rape cases is that it becomes a scenario of he said/she said, and unless date rape drugs are found (either in the accused's possession or in the victims body, and date rape drugs tend to leave the system quickly and without trace), it's difficult to prove whether sex was consensual or not and a case will not go to court without hard evidence.

Yes. Ok it's complicated. On one hand of course I care about victims of domestic abuse no matter their sex, but on the other hand . . . I'm a feminist and women are predominantly the victims of domestic violence and need more support.

I think there is plenty of support out there for women if they wish to seek it, I don't think there is so much support for men and female on male domestic abuse isn't really a topic that is discussed to the extent that male on female domestic abuse is. How many women's shelters are there in comparison to men's shelters?

Depp is rich, famous, loved. He'll be fine. If i have to expend my energy fighting for the rich and famous, I'd rather fight for Britney Spears, who has been abused by the courts, by her own father, by the media etc. for years.

I think both cases will lead to some sort of change in the future. Depp's case highlights male victims of domestic abuse whilst Britney Spears' case highlight how vulnerable conservatorships can make their subjects when someone is stripped of their own autonomy.

We didn't see Warren and Katrina's relationship. We don't really know what it was like prior to this episode.

Given what we did see in IWMTLY, I think it would be safe to say that Warren wasn't harming Katrina in their relationship.

 

[Dneifrenid]

Because he showed no remorse.

 

[Priceless]

I do think we should maybe try to move on from this particular topic as it is a bit dicey as to whether it's veering into political territory or not and neither of us want to get in trouble with the mods 😛

Agreed 😀

I disagree. If a male celebrity is accused then the court of public opinion tends to think he's guilty until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone thinks he's guilty but he will certainly be treated as guilty by the media and social media.

I can't really say either way. Celebrities aren't the same as normal people in that regard. I have seen a few footballers accused of rape/assault etc., and everyone seems to jump to their defence, but I have no stats to back that up.

I'd say a small minority of those cases were probably false accusations but certainly not all of them. The problem with rape cases is that it becomes a scenario of he said/she said, and unless date rape drugs are found (either in the accused's possession or in the victims body, and date rape drugs tend to leave the system quickly and without trace), it's difficult to prove whether sex was consensual or not and a case will not go to court without hard evidence.

I agree, there has to be proof, but I feel that the CPS simply refuses to take cases where the victim isn't 'pure' to court. If the woman has had sex previously, if she's drunk, if she said she'd go with him then changed her mind etc. etc. all these things are taken into account, and it's always on the side of the accused the CPS falls, because a woman like that will not be believed. It's horrendous and really pisses me off.

Nowadays the 'rough sex' defence is fashionable and some of those cases show that women were tortured prior to death. The men say 'they asked for it', well I do not believe any woman asked for what some of those women got, and yet the men walk free. We live in a society where women or their defenders are simply not believed.

I think there is plenty of support out there for women if they wish to seek it, I don't think there is so much support for men and female on male domestic abuse isn't really a topic that is discussed to the extent that male on female domestic abuse is. How many women's shelters are there in comparison to men's shelters?

Shelters nowadays tend to offer separate male sections. I think there is support for men, but the victims are overwhelmingly female. And the shelters are incredibly underfunded and there is always a shortage of beds and spaces. I would encourage everyone to give to their local refuge if they can. I would also say that the first shelters (at least in the UK) were started by woman who saw the need for them and they fought hard to get govt funds. If men want shelters, pay for it and fight for it yourselves, like women had to do. Stop leaning on resources that are so underfunded and overstretched anyway.

Given what we did see in IWMTLY, I think it would be safe to say that Warren wasn't harming Katrina in their relationship.

And I would say that being with Warren harmed her so much, it killed her.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

And I would say that being with Warren harmed her so much, it killed her.

Except Katrina had left Warren at the end of IWMTLY, they weren't in a relationship in Dead Things. Warren chose to use the mind control on her because she refused to get back with him. If, for whatever reason, Katrina had decided to hear Warren out and get back with him, do you think things would've worked out differently or would the same events have occurred?

 

[Priceless]

Except Katrina had left Warren at the end of IWMTLY, they weren't in a relationship in Dead Things. Warren chose to use the mind control on her because she refused to get back with him. If, for whatever reason, Katrina had decided to hear Warren out and get back with him, do you think things would've worked out differently or would the same events have occurred?

Warren was an abuser, so even if Katrina had heard him out, eventually he would have hurt her. I am not sure Andrew and Jonathan would have been involved in that, but I am completely convinced Warren would have hurt Katrina eventually.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Warren was an abuser

Can you give some examples of his abusing people prior to accidentally killing Katrina? I don't remember.

 

[Taake]

Can you give some examples of his abusing people prior to accidentally killing Katrina? I don't remember.

Depends on what you mean with abuse, leaving April is a kind of abuse (he couldn’t even break up or turn off his own gosh darn robot! Speaks volumes as to who he is as a person and how he treats others), I would count creating the Buffybot as abuse. He could have told Buffy about it, he didn’t (she took on his growling killer robot, she could handle Spike for him). He is abusive and manipulative in his friendships in the Trio.

Basically I think Warren is hated more than others because he is remorselessly self-serving and has no redeeming qualities or motives. It is not the deeds but the man that is hated (well the deeds too), whereas with a lot of other characters we may hate the deeds but not the doer because they are shown to be affected by their own wrong doings and, eventually, seek change.

 

[Taake]

Something else I thought about with Warren, is that his abuse starts to seep through the second he gets a whiff of power. Meaning that he only seems "harmless" (at best) when he is in an inferior position. You see this especially with the Trio.

There isn't overt evidence that he was abusive to Katrina in their relationship to start, because he was inferior to her. As he created April previously, it can be reasoned that Katrina was his first real girlfriend and that this made him eager to keep and please her. I think he genuinely liked her, but as mentioned, the second there is a hint of disapproval from Katrina he reacts with an anger that seems to be simmering under the surface of all his acts.

Notably, when he meets Katrina again in season 6 he seems to think he can get her back by the sheer virtue of being more powerful now. When that doesn't work, he doesn't accept rejection, but instead mind controls her and doesn't only intend to use her for sex but he degrades her by putting her in a French maid outfit. We can safely assume Katrina would not have agreed to put that on for him and thus, putting it on her is part of humiliating her for daring to reject him.

While I am loathe to defend the Buffybot, which I think is disgusting, at least Spike - soulless Spike to boot - actually wants it to be Buffy. A Buffy that responds to his feelings yes, but he wants it to be real Buffy. It dresses, talks, and acts like real Buffy*. Enough so for her friends to be fooled for a while. While it is degrading in its essence, it is not intentionally degrading Buffy.

Compared to this Warren creates women who serve him - April is designed to be perfect for him and, as mentioned above, not even cry (and again, he is still too chicken shit to find the off-switch before taking off). She is not designed to be a person, but a talking sex-slave. Not a sex-doll, but a sex-slave. A doll would be inanimate, Warren wants someone who is completely under his control but seemingly a real girl.

And again, once he controls Katrina's mind, his first reaction is to degrade her and turn her into something she would not choose for herself. He does not want Katrina the person, he wants control over Katrina the woman because he thinks he deserves her love but has no respect for her as a human being.

So again, even when his actions are somewhat comparable to other characters, it is Warren the man who, at the bottom of it all, is more the problem and who makes it difficult to understand and/or reason about his deeds in any ameliorating fashion.

*the sexual fantasies are his, but arguably because he doesn't know Buffy's real fantasies, if he had, he would probably have wanted to come as close to the real thing as possible.

 

[sweetiepie]

It's a pretty controversial opinion, and I'm not saying that people shouldn't dislike Warren, but what has he actually done that the scoobies or Faith haven't?

He attempted to rape Katrina- That's bad, however Spike attempted to rape Buffy, Faith attempted to rape Xander as she was strangling him, Hyena Xander attempted "felony sexual assault" against Buffy, Faith DID rape Riley and by extension Buffy. Angel/Angelus has raped in the past and their is debate over whether Spike raped in the past.

He mind controlled Katrina- Xander did the love spell in Season 2 which made the entre female population of Sunnydale fall in love with him, Willow even offered him her virginity. Willow also messed with her friends minds in Tabula Rasa.

He has a "misogynistic" view of women- How is it any different to Faith's "use them then lose them" view of men? She took Xander's virginity then tossed him aside even though he thought they had a connection. He was nothing but a toy to her and she threw him away when she got what se wanted.

He killed Tara- Angel/Angelus killed Jenny, Spike attempted to kill Buffy on several occasions, and Willow attempted to destroy the entire world.

He came up with schemes that got people hurt or killed- Anya was a vengeance demon who took pleasure in making men suffer and her actions have led to death. As a human she still looked upon those days fondly. After Xander jilted her on their wedding day, she went back to being a vengeance demon and released those spider demons which killed those guys. She felt bad and wanted it taken back which ended up with Halfrek being killed.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't dislike Warren because of his actions, however he seems to get an awful lot of hate for stuff that the scoobies and Faith have done too. Why such a double standard? Why is he often considered a hated character yet Faith, Willow and Anya aren't despite their actions?

Thoughts?

I am okay with Warren. He is not in my top 5 characters but he is also not among my most hated characters. Warren is a villain albeit a good villain. The reason Warren attracts hate is that he never felt remorse and didn't make attempts to change.

 

[TriBel]

"Katrina, I don't wanna hear about your sister's place again. Pack your stuff now"...
"Katrina, please be quiet, okay, this is important. Wait in the kitchen".... "Trina, shut up".

If someone had spoken to me like that I'd have walked out...and he wouldn't have been able to walk for 3 days. He's not just dismissive...he's talking to her as though she's a child...hence the diminution of her name at the end.

He treats Buffy as if she's stupid

BUFFY: Believe me, I, I worked it out. WARREN: No, this is something, uh, that you can't possibly know.
Pointedly, the text doesn't even give her the last word. BUFFY: Uh-huh. Uh-huh is not a word.

He shows no consideration for his mother (so doesn't have William/Spike's redeeming features):

KATRINA: Why the rush? It's real early. Are we even gonna say goodbye to your mom? WARREN: (packing) Uh, you can call her.

He makes a women who growls? His perfect woman growls? What the...? At least Spike makes his "animal" remark spontaneously and means it as a compliment.

But IWMTLY also makes other characters sound sleazy:

XANDER: She's a sexbot. (to Giles) I mean, what guy doesn't dream about that?
Beautiful girl with ... no other thought but to please you ... willing to do anything...
In fairness, Willow is also ogling April (probably a point worth considering).

IWMTLY is probably about misogynistic microaggressions...with Warren as the extreme conclusion. I also think it's making a point about how misogyny is rooted in male fantasy and is linked to power. It's creating a huge nexus that enfolds the whole of the series.

I could probably find reasons (rather than excuses) for why he is how he is but as far as the OP: Warren shouldn't be hated as much as he is - Yeah he should, he really should. As Buffy says: Oh, come on. The guy's just a big wedge of sleaze, don't make excuses for him.

So there perhaps is a certain irony that his character is subject to "the viewer's gaze" rather than being given scenes from his own POV.

That's an excellent point. IMO, S6 is definitely about the gaze (whether it's Sartre, Lacan or Mulvey - I suspect a conflation - unless I just conflate them 😏 and there's probably other versions) and I can't think of anyone who escapes it. I think I said at the beginning Warren...via the cameras...looks out but not in. In S5 there's an intimation of self reflection but in S6 I think it's gone. He's completely internalised the gaze (as have Andrew and Jonathan but the latter to a much less degree).

I haven't thought this through but I could, to my own satisfaction, argue Warren has the psychic structure of a narcissist, based on a) what we see and b) being the child of a single mother (over-indulged, raised to believe he's a little god. There's a theoretical framework for it). The term trio has always bothered me because of the Holy Trinity but also because the mother/father/child constitutes a trinity and most of the families in BtVS consist of parents (absent or present) and a single child so I think there's a compare/contrast thing going on. Andrew tells us they were going to be Gods. Move along the semantic spectrum from "love", "respect" and you'll eventually get to "worship". Is it coincidence that "I was made to love you" is the same episode Spike dismantles his Buffy shrine? Made = manufactured; it also = forced. Warren literally makes worshippers (doesn't he tell Katrina to get down on her knees? Yes...there are sexual connotations but phrases such as this - and "get in the kitchen" signify on different levels.) The dots will join up.

But it's more than Warren being the result of family structure/male fantasy. I'd argue by S6 he's portrayed as less a product of American parents than he is a product of American culture - primarily popular culture which, from the early part of the 20th century has been heavily influenced by film/television.

There's been a lot of concern recently about American Narcissism (it's not a new topic - Lasch was writing about it back in the day but it seems to have resurfaced.

Americans view themselves as being more narcissistic than people in other countries. And people in other countries agree. The United States is the most narcissistic nation in the world and everyone knows it. We are a nation of narcissists.

Is Narcissism the Cost of Being an American?

Why is narcissism a particularly American trait? Americans focus more on themselves than others and it's not Donald Trump's fault.

www.psychologytoday.com

I'm not going into this because there's a 20,000 paper here but I think BtVS is linking narcissism and film/television. It's fairly clear from the Trio's obsession with visual representation. They surround themselves with little craven images in which they see themselves reflected. The images are Gods and the Trio (particularly Andrew?) create themselves in their image. If this is the case, then BtVS itself is caught up in a net of its own making. I find this interesting. Is "the viewer's gaze" a warning shot across fandom's bow?

In S5 we get not Warren's PoV...but how Warren wants to be seen. What's significant in S5 is we see it on an actual screen. It's April's PoV but it's the male gaze (April's so much more than a robot - she's also a metaphor for the way (some) women are caught up in the male gaze, see with the male gaze and reflect it back).

Cut to image of Warren from April's point of view. It's like a blue computer screen with Warren's face in a circle in the middle. Along the top left is a list labeled "Directives." The lists consists of "mk warren hpy.fld", "locate_warren.fld", and "protect warren.fld". Along the top right is another list under the heading "LOCATE WARREN" with a line connecting "locate_warren.fld" on the left to the list on the right. The right-hand list reads: favorite_places.gfd phne #'s.gfd scent.gfd questions.gfd gps tracking.gfd clues.gfd *end of list* At the lower left are the words "recognition module." As Warren talks, underneath the heading "recognition module" appears the word "WARREN" and then "boyfriend." The "locate warren" list disappears and is replaced by a list connected to the "mk warren hpy" directive: kissing_01.gfd kissing_02.gfd lstn sympthtc.gfd gv_hm_prsnts.gfd sex01.gfd sex02.gfd sex03.gfd sex04.gfd praise.gfd neckrubs.gfd fetish_01.gfd fetish_02.gfd fetish_03.gfd positions01.gfd positions02.gfd positions03.gfd positions04.gfd positions05.gfd positions06.gfd The list of positions continues off the bottom of the screen. Meanwhile, underneath "Warren" and "Boyfriend" appear other identifiers: really smart handsome best lover snappy dresser good dancer.

A doll would be inanimate, Warren wants someone who is completely under his control but seemingly a real girl.

Hoffman...The Sandman...Olympia...Freud...The Unheimlich...seems relevant...but I'm too brain-dead to join the dots.

I'm more firmly convinced than ever that the Trio is the best big bad.

 

[Taake]

Hoffman...The Sandman...Olympia...Freud...The Unheimlich...seems relevant...but I'm too brain-dead to join the dots.

I'm more firmly convinced than ever that the Trio is the best big bad.

April/Olympia being desirable in their perfection but, at anything but a distance, are the Unheimlich that - while it may be repressed, creates a deep sense of unease and dissatisfaction. A proof that the goal yearned for is ever elusive. I.e. an April/Olympia that is not unheimlich. But that would require them being real, which makes them impossible.

Warren and Ted have a lot in common really, what they yearn for will always evade them and thus they are doomed to (or infernal/mad enough to) keep repeating a pattern in the hope of a different result.

The object of desire that insists upon being a subject is very difficult to handle, too bad the alternatives are uncanny.

That's all I got. And rats, did I inadvertently bolster the idea of the Trio as good villains 😛

 

[Agy]

I'd rather look at it the other way around, why shouldn't we dislike him?
He attempts awful things and only fails because of the trio's pattiness or idioticy. However at the end he succeeds and shows no remorse at all.
We can find excuses for the others, lacking a soul, grief etc and for him?
I would be curious to see what would've happened if Tara doesn't get hit accidentally and Willow doesn't go all vengeancey, what would Warren do...and I doubt he'd choose any morally acceptable path.
Logically for a human problem there should be a human solution - the police but we all know as Snyder said that "the police in Sunnydale is deeply stupid", but that's another topic 😀
Would you want anyone in your life who acts like Warren, would you feel comfortable around him? Someone without remorse and constantly making a morally questionable choice time after time is just not my cup of tee if you know how I mean.
I don't think he's actions are acceptable, just because the others are not perfect either.
For me the Trio was the scariest big bad of them all, because they're humans and their acts are the result of society and gives us a black mirror of some sort.
It's maybe a good thing to mention choice and why it is important, for example Buffy kills Ted and she doesn't know he's a robot, but she chooses to confess to the police and face the consecvences of her actions.

 

[Priceless]

Can you give some examples of his abusing people prior to accidentally killing Katrina? I don't remember.

He was aggressive towards Jonathan and Andrew, both verbally and psychologically, he called them names and put them down. He was condescending to Buffy when he first met her, then he left her to deal with April and ran away. He was not a good guy.

 

[garfan]

I'm not so sure...if not respect, I think it was partly to do with changing the way people saw her. Isn't she surprised when Giles doesn't praise her for resurrecting Buffy? I certainly think there's part of Willow that wants to be told she's a "good girl"...just as Warren wants to be a "good boy" (probably something to do with her daft mother). I can read her turning into Warren as a self-actualization of sorts.

By Season 6 we have a different Willow, one who sees the power magic gives her and is enjoying it. It's not the same as Season 3 Willow who uses magic to solve problems. And of course Willow does turn into Warren, so it would seem they are very much connected. But I don't think respect is exactly what Willow is after. Maybe it's love.

WIllow in season six before it went off the rails was enjoying her magic because she'd found a way to use it for more than a weapon

And Willow with the anti-love spell was just trying to make her and Xander stop acting in a way they didn't want to. While I've seen it argued that the fact they stopped without a spell showed they didn't need it, I think having a mental image of Cordy and Oz seeing them and Cordy with a rebar through her gut to call on was probably very good for denying sexy thoughts, that wouldn't have been there otherwise

to the main point of this thread, I can't see why anyone would defend Warren. The guy's stated goal was to be a supervillain