TBAT is pleased to present the first Slacktiverse Special
There’s a chance you’ve heard of “Twilight” – Stephenie Meyer’s four-book series on sparkly vampires have won multiple awards including the 2008 British Book Award for “Children’s Book of the Year” and the 2009 Kids’ Choice Award for “Favorite Book”. As of this time last year, the series had sold over 100 million copies worldwide, and has resulted in a series of movie spin-offs. * And if you’re a dedicated book shopper you can also blame the popularity of “Twilight” for the glut of new YA paranormal literature that is now being published by the bucket-load in the hopes that lightning will strike twice.
What’s fascinating about this level of popularity is that the plot in “Twilight” is actually fairly simple – the series revolves around a love triangle between an ordinary teenage girl and the two paranormal men who love her: a pale 104-year-old vampire masquerading as a high school teenager and a swarthy Native American werewolf with fiery skin and a fiery temper.
There’s very little to be had in “Twilight” besides the love triangle – this isn’t an action-packed series like “The Hunger Games”, it’s not a religious commentary like “His Dark Materials”, and it’s not as concerned with the paranormal elements in the story as is, say, “The Spiderwick Chronicles” or “Sisters of the Moon”. Yet, despite the sparse plot and characterization, “Twilight” continues to be massively popular – the books, movies, and spin-off novellas still sell astonishingly well, even six years after the first run in 2005. The fans aren’t all YA girls, either – demographically speaking, women of all ages are ardent fans of the series (including my 60-year-old mother-in-law), and I myself can claim a teenage step-son who attends the movies with only token protests.
Now, I’m particularly fond of literary deconstruction, especially of popular series – I feel that it’s important to take a long look at a phenomenon like “Twilight” and tease apart what the narrative means to us and about us as a society. What’s awkward about deconstructing “Twilight”, though, is that unlike, say, the “Left Behind” series (an example taken completely and totally at random**), there’s not a significant body of readers that claims “Twilight” as a life guide to be followed – if evangelical works like “Left Behind” are seen as proscriptive by their readers, then we can safely say that works like “Twilight” are generally seen as descriptive by their readers. Most readers take “Twilight” as fluff literature only – and may actively resent the implication that by enjoying a popular series, they are somehow participating in something Bad.
I’m sympathetic to that viewpoint – a deconstruction of a popular series needn’t be about how the readers are bad for enjoying it. So while I think we have a responsibility to ourselves to look at popular literature as Serious Business and examine what the underlying assumptions and themes in that literature say about society in general, I would never presume to say that enjoying “Twilight” as a series says something about a reader in particular.
And having now said that, there’s a lot to be said about the themes within “Twilight”. The series has been accused of racism, as the lovely heroine wavers indecisively between her two suitors: one calm, cool, controlled, and marble-white; the other testy, aggressive, emotional, and dark-skinned. The series has also been accused of sexism, as almost all of the women in the book have very few interests outside the home – women are defined almost completely in terms of the men around them. These issues become even more complex when taking into account Stephenie Meyer’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints – LDS doctrine on the place of women*** and non-white peoples**** in the church has historically been complicated, to say the least. All these issues are things that I think can and do deserve to be discussed (and I try to do so to the best of my poor abilities), even if the discussion makes us uncomfortable. Especially if the discussion makes us uncomfortable.
However, one issue that stands out to me more than any other issue in “Twilight” is that of deception. That might not seem very important – deception is a respected staple of YA literature because it allows the scrappy protagonists a chance to duck away from prying adult eyes in order to have adventures. And I would be the last person on earth to tell you that deception is some sort of categorical “sin” – I learned a long time ago that it’s rarely worthwhile to anyone for me to say exactly what’s on my mind. Judicious, thoughtful, and minimal use of deception can prevent strife, defuse arguments, and soothe hurt feelings. By contrast, though, excessive deception can utterly wreck people and relationships, and it is this sort of deception that frustrates and fascinates me as I work through “Twilight”.
The first few pages of “Twilight” are literally covered with deceptions. The novel opens with protagonist Bella Swan as she prepares to leave her mother in Phoenix, Arizona to move in with her father in Forks, Washington. This move represents a major sacrifice for Bella – she has always made it clear that she hates Forks – but she wants to provide space for her newly remarried mother. What’s astonishing about this actually-not-uncommon situation is the way in which is it utterly characterized by silence, lies, and deception. Bella’s mother knows why Bella is moving, and pleads with her to stay, but it’s clear to both Bella and the reader that she doesn’t really mean it. Bella insists, over and over again, that she wants to go, that the experience will be good for her, but both women know this is a lie. Bella’s father – who has been rung up out of the blue and told to air out Bella’s room – doesn’t have the first clue why his emotionally distant daughter would suddenly want to live in a town she has previously refused to even visit… and he doesn’t feel the desire to ask. To paraphrase one of my previous posts
I find this setup frustrating because neither Bella nor Renee have actually broached the topic in plain English and discussed the situation like adults. What's worse is that Charlie is completely in the dark about Bella's motivations. Charlie doesn't need to be confused about this situation, and if he is to have any kind of meaningful relationship with Bella, he shouldn't be forced into continuing that state of confusion. Charlie's interpretation of Bella's decision will completely color all his interactions with her over the next several months, and thus it's important that he start with the correct interpretation of the situation.
In a healthy family, Bella's sudden and completely uncharacteristic decision to move to a place she openly hates would have triggered an avalanche of discussions within the family from either side: Is she unhappy with school? Does she dislike Phil, or has he hurt her in any way? Has her relationship with her mother become strained as a result of her new marriage? Of course, Bella reassures the reader that none of those things are true, but it's telling that neither of her parents even bother to ask about these things.
This theme of lies and deception doesn’t begin and end as a simple literary device to propel Bella towards the plot as quickly as possible – almost as soon as Bella steps off the plane, she will start lying to her mother, her father, her classmates, and her many, many suitors. From within the preponderance of lies and deceptions, there starts to arise a disturbing trend: the apparent belief within the text that Bella should be doing all this lying.
You see, when Bella lies, it’s almost always in order to get what she wants without having to plainly say what she wants. The fact that Bella’s lies are often burdensome and painful to her makes a degree of sense from a characterization perspective – it may not be the best choice to protect your family from difficult truths with pleasant lies, but it’s certainly a realistic choice. However, that reasoning starts to fracture when non-paranormal boys start pursuing Bella and we see her desperately lying to them in repeated and vain attempts to deflect their unwanted attentions rather than plainly and firmly saying, “No.” She has travel plans! She has to stay home and study! She has to wash her hair that weekend!
What’s noteworthy about this is that Bella has no reason to lie to these boys. She doesn’t care about their feelings, she’s not friends with them in any meaningful way, and she doesn’t even want to be friends with them – she doesn’t anticipate a single consequence to a plain rejection that she wouldn’t otherwise welcome. Furthermore, she’s well aware that her evasions will clearly not solve the issue, so she additionally works tirelessly to try to shift their attentions onto other classmates. Bella isn’t a matchmaker and doesn’t take any pleasure at all in these machinations – she just wants to be left alone and the only apparent route that she can see towards this goal is to work constantly to “avoid” and/or “fix” the situation without ever once so much as hinting at the truth: that she’s just not that into them.
When we see Bella’s lies in this light – as painful and burdensome lies that she feels compelled to tell to near-strangers rather than be honest about her own wants and needs – then all her other lies start to sharply refocus into something disturbing. Maybe Bella doesn’t lie to her parents because she’s a normal girl who doesn’t want them to worry, or because she’s a manipulative girl interested in getting her own way – maybe her lies and silence (as well as her parents’ curious disinterest in talking to her) are indicative of a family environment where “good daughters” don’t express wants beyond what has been planned for them. Maybe Bella doesn’t lie to her paranormal suitors because she fears hurting them or because she’s trying to avoid rejection – maybe she feels shamed into denying that she even has desires and plans. Suddenly, these deceptions aren’t healthy, judicious choices that Bella makes in service to an end-goal – they’re an unhealthy, forced behavior that attempts to somehow reconcile a contradiction between Bella’s internal desires and her “appropriate” external behavior.
Stephenie Meyer has dismissed feminist criticism of “Twilight” by saying that the fact that Bella exercises “choice” throughout the novels reflects the foundation of modern feminism*. However, it seems to me that the “feminism” that “Twilight” offers us is a very poor one indeed. The Feminism of Twilight is that you CAN have your choice and follow your dreams – as long as your choice is shrouded in subterfuge.
The Feminism of “Twilight” seems to be that you can choose to not date a boy you’re not interested in… but you’d better expend a lot of time and effort into making sure you don’t hurt his feelings with a plain rejection. You can choose a different path from what your parents want for you… but it’s best not to sit down and discuss it with them because that will hurt their fantasy of you as their precious little girl. You can choose to plan ahead for sex, er, vampirism, but you’d better keep those desires and plans to yourself or your boyfriend may think you’re slutty. Choice is great, after all, but you wouldn’t want a reputation as a stuck-up, disobedient, slutty girl… would you?
Of course, the major problem with this is that a worldview that gives girls “choice” but expects them to be secretive and ashamed of exercising it isn’t healthy. It’s exhausting for the girls as they constantly work to maintain the perfect appearance of fulfilling the expectations laid on them by their peers, parents, and lovers. Furthermore, it’s dangerous – when you can’t safely own and express your desires, then you also can’t receive valuable feedback and advice. A system that allows “choice” only when it’s accompanied by deception and shame destroys families, ruins relationships, and tears apart girls – and yet it’s this system that I feel “Twilight” encourages for our young women. I don’t blame Stephenie Meyer for this, but I do blame the environment that raised her (and, for that matter, the rest of us) to believe that the only way she can have her cake is if she eats it after all the guests have left.
--Ana Mardoll
Visit Ana's website to read more of her analysis of the Twilight books
___________________________________________________________
* Source
** I may have mentioned before that I’m a huge fan of Fred Clark’s “Left Behind” deconstructions and those posts were a strong inspiration for my starting a “Twilight” series.
*** Source
**** Source
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.
I'm a 21-year old and don't know what pot smells like, so (while it may be far less common nowadays), I don't think you can rightly say that's a purely '70s phenomenon.
*raises hand* 28, and I don't either.
Posted by: Deird, who wouldn't know where to get any | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM
@Ana Mardoll, re: Guess and Ask culture:
I think what I'm afraid of isn't so much the Ask person intentionally stomping all over me--although I have been accidentally steamrollered a few times, mostly in minor things like "where to we want to eat/what movie do we want to watch", because I didn't psych myself up to say what I wanted in time. I'm more worried about the part of "You can ask anything you want, but be prepared to hear 'No'" where you have to be ready to hear 'No'! Not because I think it's unfair for people to say no, but because if you only ever ask outright when it's Srs Bsns or after you've put a lot of effort into hinting around, if you're told casually, "Nope, can't do it" it feels like a slap in the face. Even though to the other person it's just normal good manners!
Bah, intercultural communication is hard. Heh. On the other hand, I've been bouncing around all day going, "There's a word for it! This is an actual thing! I'm not just fucked up! I mean yeah, sure, I am fucked up in [list of ways], but there's words for this dilemma! Woohoo!" So, thanks, y'all.
(Also, can I say how pleased I am that the Modly Mods of Modness can and do step in to fix wayward italics? I feel ever so much less foolish for having fucked them up--though I shall certainly strive to avoid a repeat.)
Posted by: Nenya | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:36 AM
Just adding one more dog to the pile:
@THarti: Dude, what the fuck? Not. At all. Cool.
Posted by: Andrew Glasgow | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:09 AM
@hapax
I'm still working on the essays (in fact, taking them to bed with me in a few minutes) but... I have read the full series, and I do recall that about halfway through the first book, I realized, "Oh. Bella tops from the bottom, but being 17, hasn't worked those dynamics out yet. This is making a little more sense." I can see her as a masochistic dominant. Given solid communication and a partner reading from the same script, that can work. I just don't see those latter issues being handled within the Twilight Saga texts. I'll have to think about it, possibly dig out the original texts again.
I have a dominant streak, but I had to grow into it -- I got a level of submissive socialization in childhood that conflicted with my desire for control. I know that at 17, or 20, or 22, I was not emotionally ready to effectively communicate power exchange in an egalitarian relationship. It had to be one or the other. Since power exchange without communication doesn't work (and thank the FSM I figured that out in one brief, explosively bad failure instead of repeating it over and over and over), that side of myself got channeled into non-sexual, non-relationship stuff. (DIY, for the most part.) I didn't do it entirely consciously (thanks, socialization!) and I was in my mid 20s before I got comfortable enough with assertiveness and my own desires to put it all together. I'm still not comfortable with sadism and I don't know that I ever will be. Fortunately, D/s and S/M are separable.
However, looking back at it, I can see how attractive and how potentially toxic an emotionally manipulative, unequal power exchange could have been. For me, the problem is not that Bella gets bruised, and not that she's fine with that, but all of the other aspects of the relationship that show the B/E relationship fails the egalitarian sniff test. An emotionally egalitarian relationship has room for sex, for gettin' one's freak on, and even for erotic chastity, but it doesn't have room for emotional withdrawal, non-consensual manipulation, one-sided decision making. I think the theotherjournal author is drawing a false correlation between the emotionally dysfunctional aspects of the B/E relationship and the violent aspects of B/E's sexual relationship. However, on the sixth hand, given that the dysfunctional aspects are presented at least neutrally, if not positively, I can see how Bella's acceptance and pleasure can be read as an apology for abuse.
@Amaryllis, re: dark text on light, light text on dark: I've been meaning to change the site anyway, being somewhat frustrated with iWeb's limitations. I'm bored with it, and realizing I have other options and want to exercise them. It's no worry. And @P J Evans: Yeah. Red on Yellow, blue on green... oo. It's like stumbling onto a 1997 Geocities page.
Posted by: CZEdwards | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:18 AM
A bit like lawn clippings that have been left in a pile for a week after a rainstorm, a bit like stinky old dog. You're not missing anything.
Or that could be the ditchweed they used to grow in Kodiak. I haven't smelled any since it became illegal.
Posted by: Jenny Islander | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:29 AM
An emotionally egalitarian relationship has room for sex, for gettin' one's freak on, and even for erotic chastity, but it doesn't have room for emotional withdrawal, non-consensual manipulation, one-sided decision making.
This is a wonderful sentence.
(Also, how many hands do you have? :D I'm usually an octopod by the time I'm done listing my points. And oh yeah, totally another one who overuses parentheses to qualify thoughts and subthoughts.)
Posted by: Nenya | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:45 AM
Also, I really love his assertion that a penis automatically makes a writer serious, influential, and important.
The guy is pathetic trash and I love everyone who's been giving him what for - but I think that if we're slamming THartti for defining femininity by having breasts (deservedly), we probably shouldn't define masculinity by having a penis. Fair's fair.
--
An emotionally egalitarian relationship has room for sex, for gettin' one's freak on, and even for erotic chastity, but it doesn't have room for emotional withdrawal, non-consensual manipulation, one-sided decision making.
Or shaming your partner for their tastes, which I think you could say Edward does by freaking out so much.
--
A bit like lawn clippings that have been left in a pile for a week after a rainstorm, a bit like stinky old dog.
I guess you've been around different product ... To me, it smells sweetish and musty, like incense but a bit less sharp. I find it quite a nice smell; I wouldn't perfume my house with it or anything, but it's sort of soothing. (And this is not because I smoke it; I don't enjoy intoxicants.)
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:50 AM
@Kit: your post almost makes it sound like if it hadn't been for THartti's post and subsequent critisism then it would have been an entirely unproblematic statement. I'm sure you did mean to do that
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:55 AM
@JE: no, there are other reasons why we shouldn't assume penis = masculinity, respect for trans people being a major one. (Though I very much doubt the tosser over at that site is filled with sensitivity to trans folk.) I just thought it was worth pointing out the context.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 06:18 AM
Wise choice. It's always best to not address points you can't, and instead play a victim. It's known as the Wounded Gazelle Gambit, and is presumably the reason why you're using language more fitting a rape victim than someone who's been told off on an Internet forum.
That's not what you said. You said I can't say anything about what women are like unless I'm a woman myself. That's a flat-out lie; of course I can observe them and draw conclusions.
Yet, apparently, you making generalizations about other women doesn't violate their right to self-definition.
You divide humanity into men and women and assign the individuals in these groups different rights. That's the very definition of sexism.
Verbal grope? Because I've called your sexist post sexist, you claim I've somehow violated your physical self-determination with my words?
You're a sexist and a slanderer.
So... Given that, by your own logic, you can't possibly know anything about me - since we are different genders - yet claim things about me, should I now whine that my right to self-definition has been violated? Or does that only work the other way around?
Trying to turn rape victims into human shields to hide yourself from criticism is beyond pathetic. It's outright evil.
No, but your reply sure was.
Posted by: THartti | Mar 28, 2011 at 08:35 AM
In fact, what her captors want is for her to fight back. Because that would justify the way they feel about her.
She doesn't, so they eventually can't keep hating her.
The moral of The Host is "If you just let him keep hitting you and never ever complain or be anything other than nice, eventually he will love you."
Posted by: Ross | Mar 28, 2011 at 08:54 AM
@THartti: You're being an ass. I doubt even someone who agreed with your position before you opened your mouth would be caught dead doing so now.
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:04 AM
Huh. My blockquote fell off. That last post was supposed to cite this:
Posted by: Ross | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:07 AM
I'm a 21-year old and don't know what pot smells like, so (while it may be far less common nowadays), I don't think you can rightly say that's a purely '70s phenomenon.
Okay, I stand corrected.
It's just that I remember taking my daughter to a concert by her favorite group, when she was too young to drive there herself.
Daughter: *sniff* Mom, is that...?
Me: Yup. (Never mind how I know.)
And I'm pretty sure she's smelled it since.
----
@hapax: that was indeed a masterly smackdown, and I particularly enjoyed the Brooks reference. (I read that article too; irritating nonsense.)
But...but, but...whatever one may think of the current Pope, and I'm no fan, I don't think you can say that he isn't a person of both influence and scholarship.
And can we please, please drop the "ex-Nazi" bit? No, he didn't manage to become a child martyr-- does that have much to with his adult life.
The only ex-member of the Hitler Youth that I know personally is a deeply moral person, with a rock-solid commitment to respect for individual liberty and human dignity. I could call him an ex-Nazi, too; it wouldn't make him Hitler.
Posted by: Amaryllis | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:08 AM
And can we please, please drop the "ex-Nazi" bit? No, he didn't manage to become a child martyr-- does that have much to with his adult life.
Well, people have linked here before to anti-Semitic articles by prominent Catholic writers, which suggests that whatever else he does, the current Pope is not taking as strong a line about anti-Semitism as he might. Considering that he has no problem taking a strong line about issues like reproductive rights, the reason for this cannot be that he's incapable of taking a strong line when he feels the issue merits it. Which combines to suggest that he doesn't consider anti-Semitism a serious issue.
This doesn't mean he's a Nazi, of course. But I suspect the subject would come up less often if his commitment to individual liberty and human dignity was less questionable.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:40 AM
I know what pot smells like, but only because the room my friend was in for a year smelt of it permanently. The cleaner told me the following year that the (?jobtitle?)warden of the house thought the man currently occupying the room was smoking pot, and she (the cleaner) said "it was like that last year when Beverley was in it, so it's obviously not the student".
Bev and I, and several of our friends who had spent time in her room, hadn't recognised the smell. We were in our early twenties.
We were nice people from nice christian lower-middle-class families, what can I say?
Posted by: julie paradox | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:44 AM
What makes this scenario so disturbing are the lengths to which Bella goes to convince Edward that she is unhurt and only remembers pleasure.
I haven't gotten to Breaking Dawn yet, although I have heard of That Scene, but I wonder if part of the problem is that Bella has been built up to be a liar so much at this point that anything she says at this point is "suspect" in the essayist's eyes? The first book, Twilight, has done a lot already to show that Bella is willing to lie to Edward (since he can't read her mind) to get what she wants, so I can see where someone might think, "sure, she SAYS it doesn't hurt, but is this just lie number 1,478?"
One more problem, I think, with denying the importance of communication - if a girl CAN'T own "Yes, that hurt," then maybe the essayist fears we can't believe her when she says, "No, that didn't hurt". (I mean "can't own" in a societal, internalized misogyny sort of way, regardless of whether or not Edward in specific would listen/believe her.)
On the other hand, I REALLY love the discussions on how violent sex isn't automatically bad, and I think that has to be reinforced loudly. I actually can't wait to get to B.D. - there's so much in that book that sounds terribly fun to deconstruct.
Posted by: anamardoll | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:49 AM
I'm more worried about the part of "You can ask anything you want, but be prepared to hear 'No'" where you have to be ready to hear 'No'! Not because I think it's unfair for people to say no, but because if you only ever ask outright when it's Srs Bsns or after you've put a lot of effort into hinting around, if you're told casually, "Nope, can't do it" it feels like a slap in the face. Even though to the other person it's just normal good manners!
Nenya,
I have the same problem. With Husband (Ask Culture), I've started saying, "I have a request - please don't say 'no' right away." It sounds sort of odd, but it's been a safe way to clue-in that "Ana thinks this is important and wouldn't ask otherwise." He still can and will say 'no' to these requests if he feels like it, but it doesn't come off as the face-slap that you describe. (And I feel the same way as you - when I'd ask something and he'd flippantly say 'no' right away, I wanted to yell THIS IS IMPORTANT AT LEAST CONSIDER IT. Ha.)
For people outside "family" relationships, I'm not sure what you do, although I've been fortunate that there's usually very little "crucial" things I want/need from non-family members who can deal with my Guess Culture. I'm fairly certain I'd be useless in a "I want a raise" situation, but since my company has pleaded poverty for the last 3 years, I never bother to ask anyway... o.O
Posted by: anamardoll | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:54 AM
I wonder if part of the problem is that Bella has been built up to be a liar so much at this point that anything she says at this point is "suspect" in the essayist's eyes?
I more had the impression that it was Meyer's credibility she doubted - that rather than assuming Bella is lying, she thought it untruthful in an author to present a girl bruised from rough sex as the pinnacle of romance. And in a way she's right. I mean, bruises the girl is happy with can indeed be romantic in the right consensual context, but the Twilight books seem to position themselves as the ultimate, universal romance. This may not be Meyer's intention - an author can't control how many books they sell - but the essayist says that a lot of Evangelicals see it as setting an example, and a universal example about proper femininity and masculinity at that.
In that context, it would become, at best, generalising a kink that's specific to certain people in an inappropriate way. It's perhaps not so much that Bella can't be believed, but that she can't honestly be taken as a safe teaching tool.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 09:56 AM
In fact, what her captors want is for her to fight back. Because that would justify the way they feel about her.
She doesn't, so they eventually can't keep hating her.
The moral of The Host is "If you just let him keep hitting you and never ever complain or be anything other than nice, eventually he will love you."
Ross,
I definitely can see that, but for me it was a bit more of a Gandhi-peaceful-resistance thing.
There's a lot of racism parallels - the main character is quite literally a different race from the others and she's trying to use her submissive behavior to prove that she's not this threatening conquering alien, but rather just another person like them. It's a little ham-handed at times, but I think it comes off well overall.
I actually liked the fact that the "love interest" that was the most racist and violent actually ended the book kind of looking like a jerk. Well, maybe that was just my interpretation and S.Meyer wasn't going for that, but having the "hey, that's not cool guys" dark horse love interest pull a win out of left field was fairly refreshing to me.
Still, like I say, I can definitely see where you're coming from too, because you could definitely draw "be sweet and the abuser will stop abusing" parallels and that would most definitely NOT be healthy for a reader to draw.
(Sorry for the triple-post. Off to work now! :)
Posted by: anamardoll | Mar 28, 2011 at 10:03 AM
@julie paradox: I know what pot smells like, but only because the room my friend was in for a year smelt of it permanently. [snip]
Bev and I, and several of our friends who had spent time in her room, hadn't recognised the smell. We were in our early twenties. We were nice people from nice christian lower-middle-class families, what can I say?
I have a grad school friend who comes from much the same background. She was quite proud of having found a very reasonably priced apartment while the rest of us were paying exorbitant rents. First time I visited I had to weave my way through the "interesting" individuals sitting on the stairs up to the first (European second) floor. When I arrived at her place I mentioned that smell of the place indicated why the rent was cheap. She was taken aback since she didn't recognize the smell of weed.
She also didn't realize that the apartment below was being used as a meth lab. She couldn't understand why they kept on having "strange fires."
There she was, a middle-aged women with a graduate degree in journalism--someone who had worked as a reporter and was now getting a PhD in political science and she just had never been formally introduced to the smell of illegal drugs.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 28, 2011 at 10:26 AM
I'm not sure it's right to call it the European second floor, since the british call it the first floor and when I lived in California they called it the second floor
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Apparently the really sexist men reproduce by parthenogenesis.
I'm torn between wishing it were so and being glad it isn't, in case decent Lysistrata strategies really get momentum.
Posted by: Lonespark | Mar 28, 2011 at 10:56 AM
@Amaryllis -- yes, you're probably right. I just get ticked off at Benedict for his whole dismissive "oh, everybody was in the Hitler Youth!" schtick, because no, not "everybody" was -- I have some cousins who weren't, and they paid the price for it, too.
(I also have plenty of cousins who were enthusiastic members of the Party, so I'm not claiming any sort of virtue-by-shared-DNA)
---
@anamardoll -- I tried to read THE HOST, but couldn't get more than a few chapters into it. The protagonist to me read exactly like Bella Swan; and attitudes and behaviors that seemed perfectly reasonable for a seventeen year old human were very jarring in an alien of such long and varied lifetimes.
YMMV. I'd be interested to see your deconstructions.
---
@Thartti -- First rule of holes, friend. You are burying yourself pretty deep.
Please stop, take a deep breath, and re-read Kit's original post. Does it *really* say what you've claimed? Because if nobody else is seeing that, it's very possible that you've misinterpreted.
Even if not, your responses are ... not helping anyone believe a non-misogynistic intent.
---
@everyone who has chimed in on the issue of the otherjournal essay and relationships based on power exchange -- this conversatin has been extremely interesting, and I appreciate your candid insights.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM
i haven't seen this related article mentioned yet; forgive me if someone's already mentioned it:
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-Twilight-Bad-News-for-Girls.html
Posted by: jim t. | Mar 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM
@Lonespark: There's a certain something that only emotional blackmail can add to a relationship.
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM
I, a 25 year old college student who has stayed in my school longer than most because I'm working on a second major, know the smell of pot via my mother saying, "This gondola/room/subway/whatever smells like pot," enough times that I now can recognize the smell myself.
-
THartti, it is worth noting that Kit said people should not be making generalizations about women. She said nothing about making specific observation based statements about individual people. I don't need to grok maleness in fullness to recognize that you are being an asshole because the statement, "You are being an asshole," has nothing to do with you being male. There is no generalization there. It is very specific: you are, right here, right now, being an asshole.
I want to be clear about something here. While the above could be read as theoretical, I do in fact believe that you are being an asshole.
Also, as I read it the "verbal grope" was your painfully degrading description of breasts. I did not see it as referring to your unfounded accusations.
To say that your words are misogynistic does not require Kit to make a generalizations about men, or women, or people, or animals, or any other group. It requires her merely to read your words and see what they say. Her describing you as an individual, and doing it accurately, is in no way contradictory to her statement against generalizations.
You were a jerk*, and she called you out on it. If she had called men out, if she had condemned us all as a group based on your actions alone, then I would agree that there was hypocrisy at work. She didn't do that.
So, in conclusion, shut up. Or apologize. Given how unlikely I think that would be, I think imperative I will stick with is: shut up.
-
*This word isn't strong enough, not nearly, but I'm not sure what word would be.
Posted by: chris the cynic | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:00 PM
I've really enjoyed the talk about Guess Culture and Ask Culture. I have a friend who is deeply influenced by Guess Culture. Of course, in his case, I also think that he got tired of (actually, that's an oversimplification) getting told no or even scolded when he voiced legitimate needs of people in his life. So now it's just easier in his mind to put out those subtle hints and hope for the best.
It can be frustrating for those of us who don't always get or misread the subtle hints. For example, when he starts telling me about a problem he's having, it's not always clear to me whether he's telling me because he wants my advice or help "solving" the problem (which is my initial impulse in such situations) or just wants me to give him a hug and say, "I'm sorry. That must really suck." In those instances, I've started coming right out and asking him which kind of response he's looking for. On the flip side, when I do offer some sort of support and it's not what he's looking for, he's gotten a lot better at saying, "Thanks. But what would really help me right now is if you..."
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM
*delurk, death sheep, texas, phlebotinum yadda yadda* (my last delurk comment was when Jesurgislac was still around. I still miss her..)
wierd thing to delurk from but combination of twilight deconstruction and BDSM made me want to join in with the conversation...
my own take on the Edward thing is this: the idea of having this ultimate preditor who would totally loose his shit over you, but also love you as a person enough to control it is totally hot. I would have just bought really really hardcore chains and padlocks, and go on top. It seems that this possibility never ever occured to the actual edward /bella. Further, the character of edward as written, sadly, was like a really good looking version of my annoying, nit picky, great - uncle who was really into patronising everything female, and also, model railways. Much much less hot than my version of edward who was driven so wild by my very presence you have to chain him up to stop him killing me.
the actual relationship, and the bruises, to me is a really really big Issue. It sends me the same signals as Gor, or Christian Wife Discipline, which is basically a big 'my kink is a universal way the world works for all couples ever'. and therefore i dont need to talk about it with my partner, because it is in their nature by virtue of their gender to totally be my kink. which again, i have issues with. Real life, healthy, relationships that play with pain must have conversations in them. Any top who says anyhting other than this is trying to control the bottom in an unhealthy way. Any bottom who says anything other than this is probably not someone you want to play with, as the risk to yourself as a top is too great...
However, the novel itself seems to have been a fantasy of S. Meyers written down. And in this case, with the rules of fantasy, you dont need to have a safeword, because all the characters are actually you, and know when too much is too much. There is also a lack of 'no, left a bit, up a bit, ow, too high' type dialogue, because its masturbation. I think where this gets a bit tangled up is that much of the commentary about the novels, including S. Meyers, and her fans, blur the lines between the fantasy of this kind of relationship (fine) and the reality of this kind of relatonship (not fine)...
Posted by: laura | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:12 PM
er, i meant 'this kind of relationship' as being an abusive, stalkery one where no one talks because that wouldnt' be romantic, rather than a BDSM relationship, which, as i am in one, i have no problem with...
Posted by: laura | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM
New The Slacktiverse guest post up on the front page.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:30 PM
@Mary Kaye, 11:31 P.M.
*stares at post* Get out of my head. Except for the bi part, you're pretty much describing me.
>I knew that mind control turned me on, though I couldn't have articulated what that meant, when I was *five*. That's a heck of a long-term kink: years older than any knowledge of my sexual orientation.<
So most kinks aren't as-long-as-you-can-remember things?
@mmy
>the first (European second) floor.<
I agree with JE here. I'm pretty sure you've got ground floor versus first floor usage backwards.
We're having the smell-of-pot conversation again? It hasn't been that long since the last time we had it.
Posted by: Brin (not Meir) | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM
I don't think it's fair to say that men should learn feminist theory and then complain when they say it (anti-victim-blaming 101) like they mean it.
Posted by: | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM
"So most kinks aren't as-long-as-you-can-remember things?"
From people I've talked to (not a big sample size) it's more common than it's given credit for.
As for the floor thing I didn't mean to say that she'd got it backwards at all. In europe only the british use the ground floor, first floor ordering, as far as I know. I meant to say that there isn't really an american/european divide at all
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Nameless one who just posted, "I don't think it's fair to say that men should learn feminist theory and then complain when they say it (anti-victim-blaming 101) like they mean it." to what are you responding?
Posted by: chris the cynic | Mar 28, 2011 at 12:50 PM
@mmy: I'm 31. I've known what pot smells like for a very long time. And probably I'd be tipped off about a neighboring *meth lab* if mysterious fires kept happening. But I have no idea what a meth lab would smell like. Does it have a specific smell irrespective of the filler that goes into it? wrt "the smell of illegal drugs," I could probably only pinpoint pot.
Also, I hope you friend moved to a different place? Sounds unsafe, if for no other reason than being around a bunch of meth-related fires.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:14 PM
Trigger warning.
You said I can't say anything about what women are like unless I'm a woman myself.
No, what she said was it's not a good idea to say you know more about being a woman than women do.
Yet, apparently, you making generalizations about other women doesn't violate their right to self-definition.
What generalizations about women did Kit make?
Verbal grope? Because I've called your sexist post sexist, you claim I've somehow violated your physical self-determination with my words?
*declines to quote your original post* I'm with Kit. The way you phrased your assertion makes me feel slimed.
Trying to turn rape victims into human shields to hide yourself from criticism is beyond pathetic. It's outright evil.
I'm not a rape victim and I feel slimed. I don't care to imagine what an actual rape victim feels like when reading what you said. And by the way, I don't see anything in your post that could be described by as mild a term as 'criticism'. 'Attack' would suit better.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:15 PM
Kristin,
I'm told that a meth lab smells like cat urine all over the neighborhood.
Posted by: syfr | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:40 PM
Hey guys, some shameless self-pimping?
http://agirlcalledraven.blogspot.com/
Posted by: sarah | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:42 PM
chris the cynic - responses to Le Roc on the first page of comments.
Posted by: | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:46 PM
I see we are suffering from another bout of 'defending X is the same as attacking Y', now fortified with eight essential nutrients and 33% more transphobia.
On a more cheerful note (sorry if this has already been brought up elsewhere; I'm not sure I've caught up on all threads) has everyone seen this?
http://www.nomorelost.org/2011/03/25/straight-male-gamer-told-to-get-over-it-by-bioware/
The new RPG Dragon Age 2 features (as its makers have been tending to do for quite some time) a variety of character-romance options not limited to hetero dyads, and some Brave Defender of Straightness decided to post a long complaint about it on their forums, at which point a developer stepped in and told him to shove it, because the company was interested in making games for everyone. And there was much rejoicing.
---
Further to games, and on the subject of people tackling various parts of the LeHaye and/or Jenkins Raptureverse stories, I saw a (presumably used) copy of Left Behind: Eternal Forces (the computer game) for $5 yesterday, and wondered if anyone would be interested in an investigation of that thing. I know there are plenty of non-gamers in the community, but interactions with my parents have made me relatively adept at translating out of gamer jargon, and it might round out our dissections of the wrongness of LB. Just how much bigotry and theological failure can one weave into computerised troop movement logistics? I think we may need to know.
---
I would imagine it's like, say, tastes in food - there's some stuff you're always going to like since you were small, some stuff you'll get right into only once you encounter it much later in life, some stuff that will be instantly repellant for any number of reasons, and sometimes a taste is acquired through repeated efforts.
Most stuff that gets defined as 'kink' gets pure bemusement from me (ropes, leather, et cetera: the appropriate mental image to express my reaction here would be a duck faced with a large hadron collider*) but when the rare exception does work, I can usually find some related early memory. I'm not wild about this; it feels like rereading a story from childhood and picking up on questionable subtext that flew over my younger head.
*Just for the record, I originally mistyped this as 'hardon collider'. You're welcome.
Posted by: Will Wildman | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:56 PM
@sarah -- if you get together a short summary (see the stuff in the "This week in The Slacktiverse" post -- and send it in to TBAT at slackmods at gmail dot com -- we will add it the "this week" post.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Mar 28, 2011 at 01:57 PM
@Brin: I agree with JE here. I'm pretty sure you've got ground floor versus first floor usage backwards
quite possible. I have moderate dyslexia and am in the middle of trying to mend the ills of an intermittent internet connection and write a book review. The brain, it sometimes hurts.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:00 PM
@Will-
I would soooooooooooo read a deconstruction of the Left Behind game.
Also....
on the BioWare thing.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:02 PM
I don't think it's fair to say that men should learn feminist theory and then complain when they say it (anti-victim-blaming 101) like they mean it." to what are you responding?
The problem is, Nameless, from what I've seen, that's a complete misrepresentation/misperception of the responses LeRoc/THarti/(probably) you have received. LeRoc/TeHarti/(probably) you have demonstrated that you know the catchphrases of feminist theory, but no real understanding of that theory. It's also quite evident that he/(possibly) you are primarily interested in using those catchphrases, not to promote feminist theory, but to use it as a club against real feminists.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:07 PM
@TBAT: Will do. Thanks!
Posted by: sarah | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:20 PM
@ Amaryllis and PJ:
I have bad astigmatism, and my doc says that light on dark does (some technical thing with the retina that I don't fully understand) that increases blur with astigmatic eyes, so especially for astigmatic people, it's not a good choice. (I just use the no styling option for those pages.)
Technical explanation: http://blog.tatham.oddie.com.au/2008/10/13/why-light-text-on-dark-background-is-a-bad-idea/
Posted by: Dav | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:26 PM
I am addressing only the posts aimed at Le Roc, because I think his are worth defending (he and I are NOT the same person):
Is there a difference and, if so, what is it?
This is a serious question on my part.
*Le Roc
**Captain Awkward
*** TW on link - Fugitivus
Posted by: nameless longtime female commenter who is running out of spoons | Mar 28, 2011 at 02:49 PM
@Will Wildman - I think that 'hardon collider' is the best possible typo for this situation.
On Twilight, I love dissecting it, but I can't bear to read it. My friends who adore it picked me up a copy of the first book, and eeeeehn... it's dull, and I don't like Bella. I'd have adored it when I was 16. I'm not 16 anymore. That 16 year old me that would have been whole-hog for it is one of the reasons that I'll defend the books vocally. They've got a multitude of problems, but the majority of the criticism that I hear about them is from men who are upset that the vampires are "wussy" or seem to take personal offense that something full of shirtless males and women-appealing romance dare get popular.
Also, did you know that being extremely attractive to women makes a guy 'gay'? According to these guys, it does! Baaaah. I've heard it explained as since most media caters to male gaze, media that caters to the female gaze catches the average heterosexual male viewer off-guard. Here is a man, presented as a woman normally is ("sexy", for some value of the term), and then their head explodes and the homophobia comes out. That's the theory, anyway.
Posted by: Lampdevil | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:04 PM
THartti:
Does it make you feel big and strong to demean women? You are being a creep. You are also being as disingenuous as Dr. Laura was with her "Don't NAACP me" comment, but mostly, you are a pathetic creep who gets a false sense of power by being a creep.
Posted by: Raj | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:05 PM
nameless,
My first impulse was that all of those would benefit from a response of, "women are a diverse group of people who may have a variety of different motivations behind the same action. We aren't all the same," which is what Le Roc was given. I was about to write that, and then run off to translate a Latin text, when I realized that that that wasn't quite true.
Le Roc's comment does something that the other two don't. Where the other two comments discuss the socialization of women as a whole they don't then cross into discussing women as a monolithic whole. LeRoc's comment says rather explicitly treats all women the same. When a woman does X it is Y. There's no room of individual variation, no room for individuals at all. Women are all the same in this formulation.
The other comments don't do that. The third doesn't come close, instead limiting itself to discussion of socialization, the closest the second comes is when it says, "“No” is something we have to learn. “No” is something we have to earn." but even there, where it says all women have to do the same thing, it does not approach saying that all women have the same motivation for doing that thing.
That's the difference I see, though I admit that I'm not taking the time to examine it in depth as I really do have to go now and start doing the actual work required of me as a college student. Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, if not, I'll be back when I start procrastinating again and try to clear up any confusion I've created then.
Posted by: chris the cynic | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:08 PM
Is there a difference and, if so, what is it?
This is a serious question on my part.
The first thing I'll note is that the second and third source you quote talk about what women are taught and how they are socialized. The first quote, the one by LeRoc, is generalizing about all women's motives in any situation where they don't give a direct "No." To me, that's a pretty big difference.
I'll also note that other than being told he was wrong, given explanations of why his generalization was inaccurate, and suggesting he might do well to check with women about their motivations rather than making assumptions and generalizations, the responses to his first post were quite tame and polite. However, LeRoc came back, now posting as THartti, and decided rather than accepting correction, he'd take offense and go on the offensive, trivializing the difference between the genders and describing that difference in rather..unflattering (in my opinion) terms.
I'll also note that his further reactions really casts his comment about "being ignorant (as a man)" in the original comment in a dubious light in my mind.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:12 PM
@Nameless commenter, that Fugitivus post always resonated strongly with me. It's true, in many ways. Many, many women are raised to avoid the outright "no", to be overly concerned about the reactions of others. It's not universal, it doesn't happen all the time, not everyone turns out the same and not everyone starts with that belief or clings to that belief for their whole life... but that's out there. It's a thing.
But the way LeRoc initially phrased it, I... can't fully put my finger on it, but it was kind of a clumsy restatement of the idea. It wasn't so much Harriet's "here are a pile of reasons why women do this, so lay off, k?" and more of a "but women do this thing because they're scared, I hear!"
Yeah, sometimes we're scared. And sometimes we're not. It's hardly universal. Some days I, very female Lampdevil, stomp about the world full of NO NO NO NO. And some days I've run out of spoons and just get evasive. It's not a 100% all the time one way or the other thing. Perhaps that's the difference between the statements.
Posted by: Lampdevil | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:17 PM
Personally, I kind of detest Twilight - racism and classism and misogyny oh my - but these days I feel the same way about it that Ross talked about Doctor Who a little while ago: every time I want to complain about it, I think of all the people who have shovelfuls of bigotry poured into their own 'criticism' and I just can't bear to be on their side.
I think the books are enormously problematic and I will freely discuss this with people (or at least bring it up if someone starts going off on how marvellous they are), but of all the things in the world to hate, it just doesn't deserve the priority. It has a specific target reader-type (people who enjoy the 'submerged in someone else's daydream' effect) and it does a handful of progressive things right (teenage girl really really wants to get naked with hot guys, and doesn't get called a slut). I hate to contradict Mark (of markreadstwilight, which is the source of almost all my firsthand knowledge of the text) but no, these are not the worst books in the entire world.
The people and behaviours that disturb me second-most (after the ones who infuse their criticism with bigotry) are the ones who treat the books as a how-to, like those youtube videos that explain How To Be The Perfect Boyfriend As Illustrated By Edward, when they include things like 'a real man always has total control of the relationship'. But readers bring their own perspectives to the material, and other people make the same videos but instead draw rules like 'a good boyfriend talks about relationship issues with his girlfriend'*, which suggests to me that people aren't so much deriving their life principles from the text as they are filtering it through them. I mean, I don't think the text in any way supports the idea that 'a good boyfriend respects his girlfriend's wishes and boundaries', but if someone somehow manages to get that message, I am not complaining!
*They're still pretty much focused solely on straight couples, mind you. Twilight has hard core gender roles; I'm not familiar with many QUILTBAG peoples' views on it, aside from the aforementioned Mark.
Posted by: Will Wildman | Mar 28, 2011 at 03:22 PM
I'm not familiar with many QUILTBAG peoples' views on it, aside from the aforementioned Mark.
I dunno... I doubt there's much consensus. Of course it's heterosexist, but then so is 99% of popular culture.
Twilight doesn't particularly bother me for its heterosexism. I *would* be worried about paying for the books/movies--and not knowing whether or not the conservative Mormon author, for example, supported Prop 8.
But in terms of critiquing the actual stories... I'm *more* upset by progressive writers who fail in this area than I am by Twilight. For example, the completely *un-sexualized* relationship between Tara and Willow. Especially given that sex between straight characters was relatively straightforward throughout the series. I think Joss did a better job with Willow's new love interest post-Tara, but I know that this is an issue much discussed in the queer community.
Battlestar Galactica was even worse, with no QUILTBAG characters at all. And when the creator finally wrote a gay character into the next show (Caprica), the gay character was basically a mafia figure. And *not* very integral to the story, beyond illuminating some aspects of Adama's upbringing--i.e., the fact that he comes from a crime/mob family.
I am not particularly bothered by the heterosexism in Twilight because it's not that surprising.But I also think it makes a difference that Twilight the books only involve a handful of important characters--no big ensembles. So it's not shocking that they're all straight. I personally am more disturbed by the sexism/racism/classism in Twilight than I am by the hterosexism, but I don't speak on behalf of anyone.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:11 PM
as I read it the "verbal grope" was your painfully degrading description of breasts.
In the interests of clarity to third parties: yes, that is what I was referring to. Though I doubt many third parties are stupid enough to need this clarification, but thanks to Chris the Cynic for making it clear.
That's all I have to say on the subject. If anyone else wants a clarification, feel free to ask me, but I have nothing to say to THartti; I'm just joining the ranks of women who scrape him off their shoes. I suspect we are many.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:14 PM
For example, the completely *un-sexualized* relationship between Tara and Willow.
???
I'll admit that this might be my privilege blinders, but whenever I think of Willow/Tara, I think of Tara's song "Under Your Spell" in the musical, which had to be the sexiest song ever performed on broadcast television...
Posted by: hapax | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:18 PM
chris the cynic, Jarred, Lampdevil - Thank you all for your insight. Context is extremely important. :)
*This is a statement, not an argument. I will not be providing "evidence", nor will I be argued out of my subjective opinion*
In general - IMO, some prolific commenters have swung past defending women against sexism into practicing sexism against men without what I, personally, would call provocation.
I am NOT saying that there is never provocation, nor that SOME commenters are assholes who deserve the vitriol they get.
I am not looking for rationalizations, or apologies, or change.
I am saying something about a phenomenon that, AFAIK, no non-troll has pointed out.
It is based on my idiosyncratic readings of exchanges, with which I do not expect anyone to agree.
I am not using my regular username because I have already had several panic attacks in the last couple of months about whether or not I have the right to say something. If no one (officially) knows who I am, then no one can make it personal. Yes, I am a pathetic coward.
I do not expect anyone to agree with me, or even make any comment whatsoever... I just can't not say it anymore.
Posted by: nameless longtime female commenter who is running out of spoons | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:23 PM
chris the cynic, Jarred, Lampdevil - I am sorry. I did not mean to include you in the group I was talking about above.
Posted by: nameless longtime female commenter who is running out of spoons | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:26 PM
Another thing that is problematic about saying "When women do X, it means Y" even when one adds "but it's not their fault for deceiving, they have to do it to protect themselves" is that it can lead to saying "If women do Y when they mean Y, or if they do Z instead, they are wrong."
And I agree that the problem with what LeRoc was saying is that, while the other quotes were talking about women's experiences, which are objectively observable and don't reflect badly on women themselves. A man talking about women's motives (or a woman talking about the motives of women in general) comes across as patronizing or condescending, and generally treating the issue of not saying no with less complexity than it deserves. It also removes women's agency ("Women do this because society makes them; they are incapable of choosing to act differently").
Posted by: Lunch Meat | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:27 PM
I am not using my regular username because I have already had several panic attacks in the last couple of months about whether or not I have the right to say something. If no one (officially) knows who I am, then no one can make it personal. Yes, I am a pathetic coward.
I don't think that's bad. You're having the courtesy to acknowledge that you're employing anonymity rather than resorting to a sockpuppet, which is to say, you're being honest and respecting people rather than trying to confuse them.
And if you have opinions that you want to share, that's a good thing. I may or may not agree with them, but either's good.
Sorry to hear you've been having panic attacks. I hope you're getting support and that you feel better soon.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:29 PM
"some prolific commenters have swung past defending women against sexism into practicing sexism against men"
I disagree with the assumption that this is two sides of one scale. The fact that once or twice comments on slacktivist have made me uncomfortable is in my opinion unrelated to wether sexism against women is stood up to.
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:36 PM
For example, the completely *un-sexualized* relationship between Tara and Willow.
I have an entire rant about that relationship. Not only is it not sexualized, Tara is almost a complete non-entity. She has NO personality, likes NOTHING outside of Willow and magic, and gets almost no development or backstory. They even had an entire episode about how nobody knows anything about her, which lampshades the matter. Gah.
Plus, it's de-queered. They're off in their own little bubble, never connecting with any queer community or culture. And it's weird that Willow keeps referring to herself as "gay" rather than "lesbian."
And, of course, it completely ignores and invisibles bisexuality. Willow clearly has at least some attraction to men (*ahem* Oz), but once she's with Tara, this is completely ignored. Tara may be a lesbian, but Willow is bi, thankyouverymuch.
I'll admit that this might be my privilege blinders, but whenever I think of Willow/Tara, I think of Tara's song "Under Your Spell" in the musical, which had to be the sexiest song ever performed on broadcast television...
Really? Romantic, sure (kinda saccharine for my taste). Sexy? Really?
I find the visual metaphor of her floating to be mildly creepy, myself. And just trying to imagine the positions necessary with both of them wearing those corsets makes me twitch uncomfortably.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who popped back up after a busy weekend to WTF misogyny and sockpuppets | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:42 PM
@hapax: Hmm... I don't remember that song from the musical off-hand, and I'd need to see it again. I found the song on YouTube without video. I don't find the song *particularly* sexy per se, but...
In general, their relationship comes across as fairly platonic compared to the straight relationships on the show. They barely even kiss, though there's a quick peck here and there. When they do kiss, it's mostly sweet kisses--and very innocent-looking ones. On the other hand, we get fairly graphic scenes involving Buffy. I'm *thinking* there's not a single sex scene involving Tara. And while they refer to the existence of a sex life every now and then, it's nothing compared to what we see happen, say, between Buffy and Spike.
Another issue involves the show's apparent biphobia. Willow is sexually attracted to men for the first few years of the show. In one episode, she comes back from some sort of dream and says, "I think I might be a little gay." But then she's a lesbian by the time Tara comes along. And, I mean... I don't think that sexual orientation is static. But I also think rewriting Willow as a lesbian undermined her previous relationships and everything we knew about her until the day she fell in love with Tara. We never saw any kind of *shift* in which she starts realizing she likes women. It's just: One minute, she's in love with OZ, and from there it's just True Love. On one hand, I think it's kinda nice that they had the show's single stable relationship. On the other, we never see any passion in it like we do the others. We see love and commitment--good things. But college students just falling in love tend to have passionate relationships.
This isn't all that unusual. Glee is the current gay-friendly show, but there was an entire episode this season about how Blaine *really* needed to examine his heterosexual attraction to Rachael--and think about the ways in which this involved trying to "be someone else." (I really hate Glee so much more than Buffy...)
There is a fair amount of critique within the queer community about the Willow/Tara relationship. And apparently it comes up in the comp lit literature on Buffy (so say my friends who publish on these kinds of things). On one hand, I find some of the racism in Buffy more troubling than the failures of the Willow/Tara relationship (Anyone remember the *Thanksgiving* episode?). But, yeah, the Willow/Tara thing is also there.
Of course, an argument could be made about how male gaze-oriented popular representations of lesbian relationships tend to be... And it's a bit of a relief to see a lesbian relationship onscreen *not* designed for the purpose of titillating men. But, but... I also think the Buffy audience was a bit more sophisticated than the Real World audience, for example, and I don't think a more honest sexual relationship would have come across as For the Men.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:46 PM
Since the subject's come up ... my reply to LeRoc.
It was a bit curt, yes, but I stand by my point that there was an element of discourtesy in his post. Unintentional, I'm fairly sure, but I felt it was worth pointing out.
Here's his post:
Forgive me my ignorance (being a man), but I always understood that when a woman gives an evasive answer to the advances of a man, especially a man she doesn't know, this is a form of self protection.
For example, when a man comes up to a woman in a bar offering her a drink, she never knows if she gives him a direct "no" whether he will become agressive or not. It seems to me that giving an evasive answer ("I have to see a friend/I'm going home already/whatever") is safer in this respect.
So I wouldn't always call it deception.
These were the specific things that bothered me:
- 'I always understood'. This implies that there's a single understanding to be had of female behaviour, which doesn't acknowledge that women have different motivations and that one woman may have many. It also has, to my ears at least, a slight note of academic enquiry, as if women were a theoretical subject rather than people present in the discussion.
- 'when a man comes up to a woman in a bar offering her a drink, she never knows if she gives him a direct "no" whether he will become agressive or not.' It's the 'never' that troubled me. Women are very often adept at scanning men for signs of threat - though not all women, and not all men scan easily. Again, it's a single scenario that doesn't acknowledge multiple experiences.
- 'It seems to me that giving an evasive answer ("I have to see a friend/I'm going home already/whatever") is safer in this respect.' The problem here was the 'It seems to me.' It implies that the male is in the position of judge. Some men act as if a woman has to convince them before they'll consider her right to define her own experience legitimate; this may not have been the intention, but the phrasing echoed it in a way that felt uncomfortable.
- 'So I wouldn't always call it deception.' This was what really bothered me. Rather than asking women whether this was accurate, he moved to saying that Ana and the women who agreed with her were wrong - with the implication that he, a man, was entitled to tell women that they were wrong in their analysis of female experience, as if what he'd 'always understood' about women (which was in fact an oversimplification) trumped what actual women were saying.
In short, it came across as mansplaining. Well-intentioned mansplaining, I'm sure, but mansplaining nonetheless. I tried to point it out reasonably politely, but that's a matter of opinion.
In any case, since Ms Anon was courteous enough to raise the issue in a transparent and civil manner, I felt I owed her an explanation. Whether or not it satisfies you, Ms Anon, is of course up to you.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Hang on, LeRoc and THartti were the same person? How do people know that?
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:49 PM
Posted before I finished - wanted to say that if they were the same person, I withdraw the assumption of good intentions.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:50 PM
@MadGastronomer--Yes, exactly.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:51 PM
Hang on, LeRoc and THartti were the same person? How do people know that?
I was also wondering about this question.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:53 PM
Hang on, LeRoc and THartti were the same person? How do people know that?
In retrospect, I assumed that based on his reaction to your original comment. It struck me that he took what you said as something personally directed towards him.
In retrospect, it's possible my assumption here is wrong. And it's possible I'm the only person who jumped to that conclusion.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:53 PM
Remember, both the "Under Your Spell" scene and later "Seeing Red" with its (relatively) explicit sex between the two were in Season Six, after the move to UPN. The WB was considerably more restrictive about "homosexual content" being shown on screen, to the point that (reportedly) the show's creator had to threaten to leave before the network would allow them to kiss on camera.
Posted by: PastyAndUnhealthy | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:57 PM
--------------Episode spoiler for Angel------------------
Yeah, why Willow isn't called bisexual is something I never understood. I get what you mean by desexualized too, when Cordelia misstakes Harmony's intrest in sucking her blood as a different kind of interest there's more chemistry between them than there ever was between Willow and Tara (although I haven't seen all the episodes with them).
Posted by: JE | Mar 28, 2011 at 04:58 PM
Seconding hapax in that my first thoughts when it comes to Tara and Willow are 'Under Your Spell' and their pre-fridging reunion celebration (Dawn: "Oh... um, I'll be downstairs! Playing music - really loudly!"), but on further thought, the non-explicitly-sex-scenes with them were not exactly infused with the kind of passion that Buffy+love interest would tend to get. I'm not sure whether that's an oversight by the writers or if it's just reflective of the different dynamics in Willow's relationships versus Buffy's relationships. I suppose a relevant question might be 'Was Willow+Tara less sexualised than Willow+Oz?'
Well, BSG did have some QUILTBAG people, but most of them ended up being homicidal extremists, and it tends to only show up in the supplemental materials like Razor and the web series. (Mind you, in BSGverse, 'I've become a homicidal extremist' is their version of 'I've taken up jogging'.)
There were other QUILTBAG-ish aspects to Caprica beyond that one character; there are people in 'group marriages' where women refer to their wives in addition to their husbands (and vice-versa), and the morning-after scenes certainly imply that bisexuality is quite normal. What distressed me about Caprica is that the writers made reference to 'Colonial society at the height of its decadence', which for some reason seemed to mean that a bunch of drugs were legalised and polyamory was socially okay, and... yeah, this non-drug-using natural-monogamist kinda thinks that there are some Unfortunate Implications to stating that this society immediately preceded/necessitated divine retribution. Their version of 'total decadence' is going online and LARPing human sacrifice? Plainly we are about to all be murdered by crusading robots.
---
Technically not possible. 'Sexism' refers to oppression supported by the institutionalised power imbalance between sexes. In order for someone to be sexist against men, they would have to be in a matriarchal society. 'Gender bias' is more flexible.
Now, while I don't think I agree with you, I don't like the idea that anyone here would feel suppressed in being able to express their concerns, and I think I'd like to know more about what you mean. If you don't want to comment further on it here (anonymously or otherwise), I wouldn't mind if you wanted to send an email my way. My gmail address is my first name (Trevor) and my last name, separated by a period. (For the record, any slacktivite can feel free to contact me about whatever thing they like; I've been meaning to throw this out there for a while now.)
Posted by: Will Wildman | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:02 PM
Plus, it's de-queered. They're off in their own little bubble, never connecting with any queer community or culture. And it's weird that Willow keeps referring to herself as "gay" rather than "lesbian."
Good point. I hadn't really thought about this. In a way, there's a creepy assumption that the Wicca group they join *is* a queer community (as in, "Wiccans are lesbians. And of course the witches in the show with their long hair and flowy skirts love other women.").
Hmm... I wonder if Willow calling herself "gay" had something to do with the timing of the show (mid-'90's until 2001 or 2002?). When Ellen Degeneres came out on her show, she said she was gay. Her magazine cover read, "Yep, I'm gay." I don't remember many people in popular culture referring to themselves as lesbians back then. And I was very much a part of the queer community in high school. I wasn't out, but the women who *were* called themselves gay.
Really? Romantic, sure (kinda saccharine for my taste). Sexy? Really?
Heh, yeah, that's kinda what I thought. I don't get the sexiness aspect of it. I felt the same way you did about the floating business, btw. When I think "sexy" in Buffy, I think of Buffy falling through that window on top of Spike.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:04 PM
@Jarred: In retrospect, it's possible my assumption here is wrong. And it's possible I'm the only person who jumped to that conclusion
I feel uncomfortable with someone making an authoritative statement that Person A and Person B are the same person.
We (TBAT) haven't had a chance to have a confab about this but I think the best thing to do if someone has good reason to think that someone else is a sock puppet is to bring it to TBAT before posting it on the board.
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:04 PM
The WB was considerably more restrictive about "homosexual content" being shown on screen, to the point that (reportedly) the show's creator had to threaten to leave before the network would allow them to kiss on camera.
Ah, I never knew that.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:06 PM
Well, BSG did have some QUILTBAG people, but most of them ended up being homicidal extremists, and it tends to only show up in the supplemental materials like Razor and the web series. (Mind you, in BSGverse, 'I've become a homicidal extremist' is their version of 'I've taken up jogging'.)
Ah, right. I just remembered how this was explored *only* through the webisodes, while most of us who watched just the show hadn't realized that whosis was supposed to be gay. This also coincides with the fact that people of color were all homicidal extremists *or* committed suicide.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:09 PM
Kit, I'm going to take a couple of sentences of yours and use them to illustrate something that regularly frustrates me about this kind of conversation. I'm not criticizing you or your words, and will gladly apologize if I come off that way, but the structure of the conversation that leads to you saying this.
In short, it came across as mansplaining. Well-intentioned mansplaining, I'm sure, but mansplaining nonetheless.
Why does this need to be clarified? Why do any of us (where us = feminist or other social justice activist) ever feel the need to preemptively verbally acknowledge good intentions in these circumstances? Why does this keep coming up?
Look, world, 'splaining (any kind of privilege-splaining) is well-intentioned by default. Sure, it can be done maliciously, but generally it's simply done because the privileged person thinks they know better than the disadvantaged person, and that their thoughts on the matter will enlighten and aid the disadvantaged person. That is the very core of what's wrong with 'splaining: it is condescending and overflowing with unexamined privilege.
Good point. I hadn't really thought about this. In a way, there's a creepy assumption that the Wicca group they join *is* a queer community (as in, "Wiccans are lesbians. And of course the witches in the show with their long hair and flowy skirts love other women.").
Also icky. As a Wiccan and a queer woman. And it's reinforced by the fact that they keep using magic as a metaphor for lesbian sex (and then switch to using it as a metaphor for addiction, which is an extremely creepy transition).
I don't remember many people in popular culture referring to themselves as lesbians back then. And I was very much a part of the queer community in high school. I wasn't out, but the women who *were* called themselves gay.
My experience in the mid-nineties in queer community was that women called themselves lesbians or, in queer-only social situations, dykes. Women who called themselves gay were using it as a less-threatening term, either to themselves or to those around them.
BTW, TBAT should be able to compare IP addresses to see if there are sockpuppets about.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who popped back up after a busy weekend to WTF misogyny and sockpuppets | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:11 PM
I'm *more* upset by progressive writers who fail in this area than I am by Twilight. For example, the completely *un-sexualized* relationship between Tara and Willow.
...
They barely even kiss, though there's a quick peck here and there. When they do kiss, it's mostly sweet kisses--and very innocent-looking ones. On the other hand, we get fairly graphic scenes involving Buffy. I'm *thinking* there's not a single sex scene involving Tara.
Couple of points:
1) The lack of kissing is due to the network restrictions, not the writers.
2) The show tends to have a bunch of metaphorical sex scenes for different people, where even though sex isn't happening, it's still clearly filmed as a sex scene (for instance, Angel feeding off Buffy in Graduation Day). Willow and Tara have the most sexy (and blatantly sex-scene-like) one of these, in Who Are You. I'd say it's very sexualised.
3) There's a fair amount of sex, innuendo, and implied sex in Seeing Red. But the first "actual" lesbian sex scene in the show isn't until Willow and Kennedy are together in season 7.
Posted by: Deird, who is an obsessive fangirl | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:12 PM
I suppose that I never saw the "desexualization" of the Tara / Willow relationship as problematic because all of the explicitly graphic depictions of heterosexual relationships were so... icky.
I mean, of course there's the whole Angel-desouling thing. (Why orgasm counts as a moment of "perfect happiness" and not, I dunno, a really tasty shot of blood tells you a lot about MY priorities, I suppose.) But then there's how the Willow / Xander sex breaks up two "happy" couples, and is (not-funny) jokingly implied to lead to Cordie's death; then when Buffy goes to college, she has sex with the jerk at first, then with Riley Finn -- I seem to recall one episode that was NOTHING BUT Buffy / Riley sexxoring, which was nearly enough to turn me celibate for life; there was the Anya / Xander sex, which was always presented in the crassest manner possible, then the unbearably joyless Buffy / Spike humping ...
I dunno. Maybe it's because I was over-optimistically presuming good faith, but it always seemed like the sex that they *didn't* show (e.g. Giles / Calendar) was the healthy, happy variety.
But Whedon has some peculiar hangups.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:14 PM
There were other QUILTBAG-ish aspects to Caprica beyond that one character; there are people in 'group marriages' where women refer to their wives in addition to their husbands (and vice-versa), and the morning-after scenes certainly imply that bisexuality is quite normal. What distressed me about Caprica is that the writers made reference to 'Colonial society at the height of its decadence', which for some reason seemed to mean that a bunch of drugs were legalised and polyamory was socially okay, and... yeah, this non-drug-using natural-monogamist kinda thinks that there are some Unfortunate Implications to stating that this society immediately preceded/necessitated divine retribution. Their version of 'total decadence' is going online and LARPing human sacrifice? Plainly we are about to all be murdered by crusading robots.
Heh, yeah. In addition, the show just really *sucked.* I watched out of loyalty, but my god, I hated it. Here's hoping for a better spinoff next time 'round. There's nothing sexualized between the wives in Caprica that ever made me think the term meant anything other than "sister wives." I do remembering noticing what seemed like palpable sexual tension between Amanda Graystone and Clarice Willow, but they never did anything about it.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:14 PM
@MadGastronomer: BTW, TBAT should be able to compare IP addresses to see if there are sockpuppets about
Yup.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:15 PM
(blink, blink) There is? Um....are you talking about the group we see in "Hush", where Willow and Tara first meet? I don't remember anything about their sexualities being implied.....
On the other hand, Season Four had a lot of "doing spells together" == "having sex" metaphors. Is that what you meant?
Posted by: PastyAndUnhealthy | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:15 PM
@MadGastronomer: Look, world, 'splaining (any kind of privilege-splaining) is well-intentioned by default
I am not sure I entirely buy that. If someone 'splains to me because they presume that due to the fact that I am [fill in the group] and I am therefore stupid, evil, petty, venal or sinful -- then I am loathe to describe their behaviour as "well-intentioned."
Posted by: Mmy | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:18 PM
My experience in the mid-nineties in queer community was that women called themselves lesbians or, in queer-only social situations, dykes. Women who called themselves gay were using it as a less-threatening term, either to themselves or to those around them.
See, I think the people who used it when I was in high school in the mid-late nineties did so because it was what we most often heard people say on *television.* I was 14 or 15 when Ellen came out, and she shaped the way in which we spoke of these things, certainly. None of us were integrated into any adult queer communities or had non-heterosexual parents--it was just us, using what we found in books and movies to learn how things work. So, I really don't think my friends back then thought about it as a conciliatory term--we just used it because we thought people did. It's probably important here to note that, while I didn't have a rural upbringing, I also wasn't on the West Coast or New York or in any big city with a queer community. So, even if this wasn't the mainstream practice at the time, my friends and I had the impression that it was.
Wrt the issue of Buffy, however... Well, Joss should've known better. We were 14 and 15.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:22 PM
@mmy: The weird thing is, i was thinking "same person, different names," but not "sock puppet." That probably sounds strange, but it's likely an artifact of my past involvement in online communities where users tended to change their names on a regular basis.
But your recommendation is noted and I apologize to LeRoc.
Posted by: Jarred | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:24 PM
@Pastyandunhealthy: Yes, *yes* and lesbianism as Wicca is both explicitly referenced and used as a metaphor throughout. But MadGastronomer develops the point more upthread. I don't really have anything to add.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:27 PM
I seem to recall one episode that was NOTHING BUT Buffy / Riley sexxoring, which was nearly enough to turn me celibate for life;
Yep. And might I add: ICK. That episode was horrifying.
But Whedon has some peculiar hangups.
Indeed he does.
Posted by: Deird, who prefers implied sexing on her tv shows | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:31 PM
I am not sure I entirely buy that. If someone 'splains to me because they presume that due to the fact that I am [fill in the group] and I am therefore stupid, evil, petty, venal or sinful -- then I am loathe to describe their behaviour as "well-intentioned."
Well, in truth, I'm with you, but it seems to fall within the definition of "well-intentioned" used to excuse bigotry on a regular basis, which appears to me to be, "Well, $BIGOT thought they were being nice!"
But really, it's implicit in 'splaining that the 'splainer think the people being 'splained to really need to have this explained to them, which does indicate that the 'splainer thinks they're stupid or ignorant.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who popped back up after a busy weekend to WTF misogyny | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:31 PM
I am not sure I entirely buy that. If someone 'splains to me because they presume that due to the fact that I am [fill in the group] and I am therefore stupid, evil, petty, venal or sinful -- then I am loathe to describe their behaviour as "well-intentioned."
I see it this way as well, and I'm sort of temperamentally inclined *not* to presume good faith when I encounter 'splaining.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:33 PM
See, I think the people who used it when I was in high school in the mid-late nineties did so because it was what we most often heard people say on *television.* I was 14 or 15 when Ellen came out, and she shaped the way in which we spoke of these things, certainly. None of us were integrated into any adult queer communities or had non-heterosexual parents--it was just us, using what we found in books and movies to learn how things work. So, I really don't think my friends back then thought about it as a conciliatory term--we just used it because we thought people did.
That would make sense.
I was 18 and had been hanging out with queer adults for two years already when that episode aired. I watched it, but only because I was visiting my home town from college and was helping to transport Quilt panels that day, and had just finished and been invited to a lesbian-owned cafe for dinner, where a bunch of local dykes had gathered to watch it.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who popped back up after a busy weekend to WTF misogyny and 'splaining | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:36 PM
I spent like two hours reading that Twilight fanfic with rationalist-Bella last night rather than continuing to read this thread. It was pretty awesome. Thanks for linking it Jim.
---
I used to watch Buffy regularly, I know that, but I cannot remember much that happened in the show, so I don't have much to add there. On Twilight, I feel like it about how I feel about the term Mary Sue as used in criticism--there's things in there worth criticizing, but as has been said upthread, the critics are so bad I don't want lump myself in with them. Teenage girls deserve fantasies to read as much as anybody, and it can't be any worse for them than reading the Sleeping Beauty trilogy was for me at that age.
I really think one of the big attractions of Twilight is shared by Harry Potter- that all-too-common teen idea of being special, being taken away from ordinary life to something better. Bella has inherent qualities that draw her to the vampire's attention and make her more interesting than all those other people at her high school (her mind not being readable in particular) and I think that taps into the same vein as Harry suddenly finding out he is not a freak but an important figure in the magical community. I dunno, I just remember how much young me loved all stories that had that "I'm really better than this place" element to them. (It was also a big attraction of certain Pern books, as I recall.)
Posted by: alienbooknose | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:48 PM
I suppose that I never saw the "desexualization" of the Tara / Willow relationship as problematic because all of the explicitly graphic depictions of heterosexual relationships were so... icky.
Huh. I hadn't thought about it that way. I *was* always grossed out by Buffy's relationship with Angel, and I didn't like Riley much better. Are you referring to the episode in which the vine/tree grows up around the room where Buffy and Riley are having sex? I was okay with the Buffy/Spike sex, at least, which I thought was kinda hot... Until Spike assaults Buffy. And then *that* one become gross too, and I felt guilty for ever thinking otherwise.
But the thing that grossed me out most about Buffy/Spike is the (sixth- or seventh-season) episode in which she becomes a self-righteous twit about her "chosenness" and Dawn finally stands up to her. Then she flounces off to be alone, and Spike follows her for a pep talk. That night, when Buffy and Spike lie there together in the bed--sexless, but holding each other, in an image we're supposed to find profoundly touching. If I recall the scene correctly, Buffy is sleeping, but Spike is staring at her *very intently.* And then Spike comes out later with a dramatic declaration about how this was "the best night of his life" because it was the "first time he'd ever felt close to anyone."
So, I guess I see what you mean--yeah, the sexual relationships were problematic too. Hmm... But I don't think I'd draw the conclusion from this that the chaste Willow/Tara relationship was unproblematic, only problematic in a different way.
Oh, and I didn't mind the Anya/Xander pairing. Yes, it was crass, but it was also consistent with Anya's character. She didn't understand our sexual hang-ups, so I forgave that. And I adored Anya. She was by far my favorite character.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:52 PM
There is? Um....are you talking about the group we see in "Hush", where Willow and Tara first meet? I don't remember anything about their sexualities being implied.....
The group that they sort-of join when they first meet -- the one that doesn't do magic and thinks that's a negative stereotype of witches, has strong elements of a stereotype of Goddess Spirituality Movement lesbians, IIRC. I certainly took it for a lesbian group the first time I watched it.
Posted by: MadGastronomer, who popped back up after a busy weekend to WTF misogyny and 'splaining | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:55 PM
The group that they sort-of join when they first meet -- the one that doesn't do magic and thinks that's a negative stereotype of witches, has strong elements of a stereotype of Goddess Spirituality Movement lesbians, IIRC. I certainly took it for a lesbian group the first time I watched it.
Right. This is how I saw it.
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:57 PM
I certainly took it for a lesbian group the first time I watched it.
Really? I didn't. I just found it amusing, because the way they were running meetings was precisely like the Christian groups at my uni, with the same distraction by bake sales.
Posted by: Deird, who needs chocolate | Mar 28, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Kit Whitfield - Thank you for that explanation, I appreciate it.
My 'splaining radar is apparently set at a different level than yours. I guess that's why mileages vary. :)
Will Wildman - I will keep your offer in mind, I just don't fell up to it right now. Thank you. :)
Posted by: nameless longtime female commenter who is running out of spoons | Mar 28, 2011 at 06:03 PM
I think I just need a break from the internet for a while...
and a nap! :)
Posted by: nameless longtime female commenter who is running out of spoons | Mar 28, 2011 at 06:24 PM
Yes. Nap. Nap is good. *offers Ms Anon hugs*
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Mar 28, 2011 at 07:04 PM
Thanks again to hapax, Erl, Ravanan, and Amaryllis for making the effort to engage WWWtW. They were complete and total asshats about and never addressed our arguments, but it was very refreshing to see posts that don't agree with the writers.
Posted by: Karen, who needs to write a new blog post | Mar 28, 2011 at 08:22 PM