|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:30:54 GMT -5
Ellie, I'm just a sucker for a well-turned phrase. It just goes TA-DA in my mind, all wrapped up in itself like a tidy, punchy little couplet at the end of a sonnet. The way your phrase does: a genuine TA-DA!
I didn't intentionally neglect Alexandra's comments, that set this all off, as being prime for inclusion in the proposed new section of the S3 site. I'm finding these mini-essays, point and counter-point, very insightful and enjoyable, bringing out this facet and then that of the series. I think even a casual reader would likewise find them interesting and well-argued.
Nan Dibble
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:31:45 GMT -5
Great essay Joshua. (What's Semiotics? Sounds like street slang for a large gun).
I agree that to make Buffy a hero she's been given all the typical male characteristics of bravery, strength,the impulse to solve all problems by fighting them or beating them into submission, emotional withholding, not sharing information or feelings with the people who are closest to her, etc.
Clever women who solve things with intelligence are often seen as evil, manipulative or overstepping their place. Women who share emotionally are interpreted as 'needy'. Women who have more masculine tastes in things, are obviously dykes. And women who take what they want, when they want it are sluts.
Wonder Woman and all her successors were acceptable because they had big boobs and ran around in practically nothing.They were hot. (What is this marriage of super powers and spandex?) At least Buffy has sometimes saved the world in overalls and a t-shirt.
As the evolution of the male hero, Spike has been a revelation.
But what are the ideal charateristics of the modern day female super hero?
PS. I hope you'll post a poem.
Rusty Goode
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:32:20 GMT -5
Spring said, "GOOD NEWS: I have my UPN back! Kinda. It came back last night, then went out for awhile again today, then came back on. Here's hoping it stabilizes by Tues night!!" Yea!! Obviously crossing my fingers worked. Sorry about you losing your reception a bit today. I uncrossed my fingers momentarily for a cramp. I will cautiously uncross them now and hope that UPN is stable enough to stay without my magic. Yea!! You got your UPN back!
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:33:26 GMT -5
I said re Buffy and Willow, "Both women have abilities that allow them to make things the way they want them. I admit, they sometimes use their power inappropriately, but that is part of any empowerment, which to me is only 'giving power to be equal'. Equally bad or equally good."
Joshua said,"Gender roles are about more than just the actual gender...Buffy's strength comes not from her feminimity but from her willingness to "be" a man. The idea, and this is where I was starting to have issue with some of the themes of this season, seems to be that traditional brute strength, traditionally male power, is truly the most valuable thing there is."
My idea of female empowerment isn't necessarily about Buffy's brute strength or the immense magical power controlled by Willow. It's about the ability to "make things the way they want them". Buffy's strength and Willow's magic give them power. In a male dominated world, brute strength gave men power, and controlling money gave men power. Men were able to make things the way they wanted them.
All through the ages women have been able to gain power, but usually only through the manipulation of a man who had access to power. Unless the woman was a hereditary queen (and sometimes not even then).
Power is neither female or male. It comes in many guises which I suppose is determined by the values of the people involved, but its results can be heavily felt by those without it.
Joshua's idea that Buffy was becoming a "man" because she had extra strength isn't the way I see it. She was becoming "powerful" because of her strength; she had the ability to make things the way she wanted them. Being strong physically doesn't make you a "man". It just makes you strong physically. Buffy doesn't look like a man, she doesn't dress like a man, she doesn't act like a man. She's just strong.
This season's theme, "It's about the power" showcases all kinds of empowerment: Willow's magic, Buffy's brute strength, the First's chicanery and manipulation through guilt trips and mindwashing, Xander's humanity (conspicuously lacking in most of the others), Spike's determination to be good, and perhaps the most powerful of all, the ability to hurt the ones you love most. This is the real power of the First - turning friends against each other. We'll see whose power is strongest.
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:34:15 GMT -5
Have you-all noticed? All of a sudden, about a dozen topics have started (since this morning) on the miscellaneous board, many lively and thoughtful (and some really funny!). The one nominating candidates for worst BtVS episode ever was my favorite.
Have a look, if you haven't already.
Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:34:47 GMT -5
Alexandra said-
"Buffy's strength and Willow's magic give them power. In a male dominated world, brute strength gave men power, and controlling money gave men power. Men were able to make things the way they wanted them. "
I would add the addendum (some men)
Spike is controversial b/c he is utilizing masculine/feminine coded ways of gaining access to power-
He undermines those categories (pretty/submissive/physically & sexually aggressive ) while invigorating them with charged representations of new ways of appropriating "Male" power.
ellie jason
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:36:24 GMT -5
On another posting I wrote-
"I interpret the learning curve of Season 6- who absorbed the lesson that as good as being bad (utilizing power thoughtlessly) may feel it does not suffice in terms of making a life worth living and its rewards are so much less fulfilling."
I don't know if any of you agree but if so in terms of Female empowerment- do you think that the women or the men are more likely to use their power wisely?
ellie jason
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:37:08 GMT -5
I thought the same thing until I saw that the ScoopMe!Editor was one of the first of those postings, which leads me to wonder whether someone has started cleaning out the episode board and these topics are the result.
If these really are individual postings, then the board really has seen an explosion. I have never seen that many posts on the Miscellaneous board in one afternoon. (No, wait, I have. Here at the S'cubie board.)
I'll go investigate further.
Watergal =^..^=
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:37:52 GMT -5
My research has backed up my original opinion. The explosion of posts is due to the Editors.
When I logged in this afternoon there was a topic called Misc. Board which contained well over a hundred posts. Now it contains only one. Someone moved all the posts, as bulk to the Miscellaneous board and subsequently sorted them into categories. If you go back and read those threads you will see that they often refer to posts that do not precede them.
Also, if you look at the date of posting, you will see that many of these postings, which came up only this afternoon, are predated to earlier in the week. The posts also do not follow each other in any particular chronological order.
I had noticed, when I was in the episode board (Wednesday I think) that many (MANY) postings were very interesting, but had absolutely nothing to do with the episode. I believe that the Editors had a day off to clear out the Episode Board and voilĂ , a very VERY busy episode board.
I will wander over to the episode board to see if there is a posting there referencing the move of these posts.
Thus concludes my research.
And for those who couldn't care less, more power to you. *chuckle* It was just a mystery I felt I had to solve. (Boy have I been working too hard or what?)
Watergal
EDITED TO ADD: Yup, that's it. Kara moved all those posts. (Is she patient or what?) Now the episode board has a mere 400 posts. We can post that much in a few days. (But we wander willy nilly and enjoy ourselves immensely without worrying about treading on toes. This is definitely the place to post.) Edited By Watergal =^..^= at 2/23/2003 10:50:00 PM
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:38:35 GMT -5
I should begin this by stating that I didn't go to college; I'm uncertain whether to even attempt to go down this philosophical road, as my education in that arena is sadly lacking. I'm a bit out of my league here. Based on that I think my feelings about the show's overall message will be considerably more simplistic than most, but here goes nothing.
In my view, BTVS has two main themes: role reversal and morality. An ideal portrayal of feminism never really enters my mind. If anything, the show reinforces my feeling that human beings are the same when you strip us down to our essence: when we are given physical power over others a certain responsibility lays with you whether you choose to have it or not. Have Buffy and Willow handled power and the execution of it better than a man could? I'd have to say no. In the end, it comes down to what's inside a person's soul, regardless of their physical makeup. Power can corrupt any human...even the best of humans over time. I feel Season 7 is the culmination of Buffy's sense of right and wrong being repeatedly tested. More than anyone else, by the way, Xander is the soul and conscience of the group, and we're led to believe that it's in direct relation to his limited physical skills.
Are we to assume, then, that the less physically powerful among us have the wisdom to see things from a softer, more humane viewpoint? They are to be respected because the brute force doesn't lay in their hands? If there is a feminist message in the show, that would have to be it. Xander is the traditional female role in a man's body. If the point was to show us what women can do when given the power in society, then the last thing you can call BTVS is a feminist show. The women on the show make the same textbook mistakes when presented with decisions forced upon male leaders in the real world: an inflated sense of self worth, a feeling of isolation from those closest to them when they feel threatened, and the arrogance to believe that because a few things have gone their way in the past no one's opinion can be of value but their own.
A perfect example is the episode Selfless. This was a reckless snap decision made by Buffy with no thought given to alternatives. Xander's feelings toward Anya were irrelevant. The example she gave in rebuttal to Xander's argument regarding her decision to kill Angel is ludicrous. That was about saving the planet with no other choice available. More importantly, it's strange how Buffy's feelings toward Dawn meant everything, with stakes as high as they were with Angel, in The Gift. It's entirely hypocritical and contradictory. To Buffy, it matters not. Her decision is final and it has to be right because she is the law. Season 7 has given us a jaded, stressed out Slayer with, on occasion, total disregard for the feelings of others. The arrogance of power is capable of corrupting the best of us. It did it with Willow in Season 6, and it looks like the other powerful female's turn this year.
Based on that I'd say the overriding theme of BTVS to me is this: no one is immune to the dangerous responsibility of wielding power over others. It's not about being a man or a woman; it's about a person whose moral compass tends to drift when confronted with the stress of repeated life or death situations. As I said when I started, that isn't a very sophisticated conclusion, but it's how I see it in layman's terms.
Rob Sorenson
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:39:38 GMT -5
Watergal-
Thank you- I had seen the earlier misc posting and been mystified- I am glad you cleared that up.
i think the editors were responding to requests to make the board simpler to read and make responses- ...I do not know if they were entirely sucessful if what you report is the case- postings not being chronological and leaving certain topics just hanging...
I did see a certain crankiness on the episode boards vis a vis the idea of having to read thru so many posts b/4 one could psot one's own thoughts...
I don't know- it just seems to me that it is common curtesy to not mention that one is not happy about having to slog thru other's posts when one's own posts can obviously be included in someone else's 'slogging".
ellie jason
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:40:07 GMT -5
I'm impressed with your research, Watergal. I just thought lots of people had started suddenly posting. Instead, it was an attic cleaning. Makes sense, now that you explain it.
Thanks.
Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:40:36 GMT -5
That's perfect, Alexandra. I wish I could've summed it up as well as you did.
Rob Sorenson
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:41:04 GMT -5
We have the privilege of enjoying "listening" to one another's comments and sometimes responding to them and sometimes not.
We're not merely interested in saying OUR thing and impatiently waiting for everybody else to shut up so we can do so.
Of course, there is nobody on this board whose comments are not thoughtful and well-founded, even comments I differ with. They are always worth reading and thinking about.
So no slogging is involved. Every once in awhile, I'm impressed with us. I stand before you guilty of SMUG. Is that worse than slogging?
Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:41:45 GMT -5
Robert-
That was a very sophisticated analysis- No need to be afraid of Virginia Woolf ( Autodidacticism rules)
I really liked your comment- "It's not about being a man or a woman; it's about a person whose moral compass tends to drift when confronted with the stress of repeated life or death situations".
Taht was as elegantly put a statement of what the Jossverse is all about as I have had the pleasure of reading. I wish I had written it.
ellie jason
|
|