(no subject)
Apr. 22nd, 2004 02:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stakebait![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jennyo had a very interesting post on misogyny in ATS, and my reaction got really long so I'm putting it here. I've been working on ensemble casting a little, and it's fucking hard.You need some minority characters. You need to make their race/sex/gender/orientation/religion/handicap a significant, believeable part of their character, but neither stereotyped nor a substitute for individuality. You need to make sure you're not clumping too many characteristics into one person. Wow, five middle class white guys and a poor Latina lesbian in a wheelchair, what were the odds? But neither can you spread them out so evenly that you've got a Beneton ad.
Can't make all the anythings any one other thing (all the brains boys, all the muscle black) without sending a message you don't intend. Then you need to consider their possible plot points before you cast them. Can't make that one a girl, they're scheduled to be smacked down in a way that would then look sexist (don't kill the lesbian). But neither do you want to make them unbelieveably unscathed while everyone around them suffers and screws up. Also you have to take into account the actors you find and want to work with, and what parts they're right for.
It's hard. In an ensemble with a maximum of six main characters, I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that it may not be possible to maximize all my diversity goals and still tell the story I'm trying to tell.
Why am I telling you all this? Because this may be Pollyanna of me, but as between "ATS is showing Joss' deep woman-hating issues" and "oh crap, now what?" I'm going with option B. It's Mr. Occam and his famous electric shaver set, as far as I'm concerned.
Charisma lost hers. SR, who I miss too, had contract issues I'm told. Kate was long gone. I honestly believe that if Alexis had started to suck hardcore and J. August had refused to come back without more money we'd have had a season five of Cordy, Fred, Angel, Spike, and Lorne.
Which would have set up an interesting situation where vampire becomes a metaphor for traditional masculinity and humanity for femininity, with Lorne as the non-combatant and flaming demon in between, and people might have accused Joss of saying man=bad, woman=good, men have to be more like women. But my point is, two problems is bad luck, not a conspiracy.
I don't think it's all bad luck. I think the Mary Sueing of Fred is a very gendered mistake, the insistance that she's purer and better and the heart of all these gritty, compromised men is positively Victorian. But they, belatedly, fixed it -- they gave us Illyria, who has her own agenda and priorities and is anything but malleable and reactive, in her place.
They gave us two new female characters, of whom Harmony rocks when she's not being the voice of sympathy -- and that's a gendered mistake too, because that ought to have been Lorne, but that was also one episode and not necessarily to be taken as the position paper.
And while Eve unquestionably sucked, I really think the simpler answer is that the character concept doesn't allow for strength of will. Hamilton, to me, is essentially Eve in drag, minus the simper and the ridiculous pretense of sophisticated sexiness. True, the simpering was gendered, but in much the same way that Riley fell flat in a very male way, and for much the same reason -- playing to an ostensibly het main character of the opposite sex.
As long as any liason accepts the human-tin-can-telephone act, they're frozen into passivity -- they may be scary as operatives, but they're not interesting as characters. And the chances are you're a fairly passive person to think that's a fair trade in the first place.
True, they used love to be the motivator that pushed her out of that to have a agenda of her own -- but that's also been the major motivator for Angel, Wesley, Gunn, and of course Spike in seasons past. It's often, IMO, oversimplified, but that doesn't make it sexist.
I miss the strong female character too. But then, so do the guys. On a meta level, I mostly blame chance. On an in-character level, you can see that as the team gets harder there's less room for everything that isn't hard -- less room for unaugmented humans, less room for non-combatants (and therefore many of the women), less room for curiosity and trust and jokes and compassion and hanging out. It's undeniable that it's happening, but I don't think for a second that Joss or anyone else is trying to hold that up as better. If anything, I think it's meant to be an indication of the price they're paying at best, and at worst, of the mistake they made.
Mer
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Word, basically
Date: 2004-04-22 12:28 pm (UTC)Re: Word, basically
Date: 2004-04-22 12:32 pm (UTC)Re: Word, basically
Date: 2004-04-22 01:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:11 pm (UTC)Mer
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:14 pm (UTC)And as for the idea that having Connor be a boy-child instead of a girl has some incredible Deeper Anti-Female Meaning...frankly, the idea of "fathers and sons" resonates on many more levels in our culture than "fathers and daughters." Not necessarily "right," but it's where late-twentieth-century America's still coming from. It lets them throw in the jealousy, both sexual and, for lack of a better term, professional (ie the fighting), without getting into the weirdness of "how did two vampires create what's basically a Slayer?" You throw in Oedipal issues, you throw in the fear of being replaced...I don't know, I just think it has more cultural resonance. Especially with the character of Angel, whose interaction with women always ends up...skewed.
But it had been a girl-child who came back from Quortoth, and they tried to do a similar arc, think of this...the characterization would have caused even MORE fury, because it would've been "another evil female." After [going in order through the 'verse], Darla, Drusilla, Faith, Professor Walsh, Lilah, Darla again, Glory, Willow, gender-bending First Evil...think of the screams THAT would've produced.
This has been incoherent. Sorry. Um...what you said was really smart 'n stuff.
Someday I'll sit down and do the "Angel's-history-with-women-and-what-it-would've-meant-for-a-daughter" essay and make it make sense. Unless someone more articulate does it first.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:35 pm (UTC)I think the love triangle plot is what made them go with a guy. Also maybe to softpedal the fact that Connorita, when she came back, would be older than Angel's soulmate was when they schtupped. You get a weird incest thing going with a pretty girl and a pretty father who looks like her boyfriend. Not that that wouldn't be interesting too, but I can totally see why they would not want to go there.
As for the cultural resonances, I think the general impression I get is not that there's less levels, but that it's different: fathers accept daughters and compete with sons, while mothers accept sons and compete with daughters. (Again, not saying that's universally true let alone desireable.) So if they're trying to play out the classic American family drama only on steroids, it'd be harder to get that head of resentment/replacement steam going.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:18 pm (UTC)I don't see this as fixing, but as a 'this is what happens when innocence dies' continuation. YMMV.
Also, I think writing can and should transcend stereotypes. It used to on both Buffy and Angel, where the girls kicked ass, the geeks were sexy, and the boys were more than brawn and macho bullshit. Which is why I never would have expected this
less room for non-combatants (and therefore many of the women)
to happen on either show. Women are combatants, whether that's acknowledged by society/culture/TPTB or not, whether they get credit or praise for it or not (usually they don't) and whether or not they have any of the recourses that boy combatants get. Like Buffy, they are and always were, because the fight comes to them even if they'd rather it didn't. To equate women with non-combatants seems a clear sign of gender-issues at the least and quite possibly misogyny to me.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:46 pm (UTC)I'm not saying women can't *be* combatants, or never have to be, or that I don't honor those who are. I am saying that I don't think it's sexist to say that in any two equal sized groups of women and men in our culture, there will probably be more combatants among the male group and fewer among the female, or that more of the female will choose means other than physical combat where they have the choice.
And I am also saying that to maintain that as a level of realism for one season, on one show, with exceptions, does not strike me as even an unclear sign of misogyny, let alone a clear one. Particularly from someone who has already subverted enough stereotypes on just this point that I think he's earned our trust.
To me that's like saying a show which acknowledges that on average most black people make less money than white people is racist. TV can set a good example, yes, but it can also hold up a mirror to society without being blamed for what the mirror shows.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 01:25 pm (UTC)The other part of the problem, besides the fact that there's a limited number of major characters you can have, is that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I think a large part of the problem is being overly fair. I look at Lindsey and Lilah in the second season of AtS. Either of them could have been the one to reconsider their actions, consider if they wanted to be good or evil. The fact that Lindsey, at the time, made a choice to leave the evil law firm and Lilah didn't - it's up to personal interpretation. Somebody could make the case that it's that men are more worthy of being redeemed than women. That same person, if Lilah had been the one who made that choice, might also make the case that it was because Lilah was a female and thus softer and less effective at being evil. Ultimately it comes down to them being individuals, not being male or female. The good guys and the bad guys both have to be across the board and personally I think that ME does a good job of that.
But if you have a particular agenda, you can find supporting evidence for it and make yourself believe it. I just don't believe it's true.
I agree with you that Fred was made too perfect, at least in the lens that the men viewed her through. That that was a mistake that they wouldn't have made for a male character. However, I think that male characters are just as likely to suffer as female. One could say that Doyle was killed off in order to give Cordelia's story more prominence, in order to give her special powers. That he was sacrificed in order to give a female character a larger and more important role. But that's the problem with broad, general statements - you CAN find the evidence, but they don't often take into account reality. I read through the arguments and I just couldn't agree with them, but obviously I was working from such a very different viewpoint.
I'm not saying that there aren't shows that do have agendas. Or even that Joss doesn't have one. But people also have agendas. I think the best thing about that is that it makes people think, in either case. To consider the message that their actions and choices are sending. Thinking about it, debating it, can help you clarify your own vision of the world. Because the interesting thing is that while JennyO starts off by saying it is Joss's misogynst message, she's ultimately blaming the viewers. By saying that if Connor was a female, the viewers would have been more appalled by the storyline. Which is an entirely different story (and of course, the fact is there's a huge number of people out there that hated him/it as it is)
I'm not sure if I'm clear there, I've got too many thoughts rushing through me. Ohh, Thursdays
Thank you for such an interesting post because I’ve been squirming a bit uncomfortably all night. And sorry if I've gotten a bit off track!
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 02:11 pm (UTC)I think JennyO had two different points, about Joss having an agenda (or an unconscious one), and about the viewers supporting it instead of critiquing it.
Which arguably we are, but not I think for the somewhat shallow reasons that are sometimes attributed to us. Connor was never my "woobie". I've never had a woobie, and God willing I never will. I didn't even particularly like Connor until the very end of season 4. Nor am I being blinded by the pretty, as someone else suggested recently. I'm bisexual, pretty girls would blind me too. :)
I think partly what happens is that people react to weak female characters with disdain largely *because* of their feminism. Women aren't like that, we say. We're strong, we're interesting, we have agendas of our own. Get this weak wannabe out of here. And then other people argue, sometimes because they disagree that the character is weak and sometimes because they think any women are better than none.
Which is fair, even if I don't agree with it, but which doesn't get to reduce my reasoning to "want fuck Spike/cuddle Connor, so they get breaks the girls don't". I wanted to fuck Willow and cuddle Dawn too. Swear to God I would hate certain characters even if they were wearing Alexis Denisof's body. Case in point, I used to hate Wesley and Connor both until they grew up.
If the question is why the lack of strong female characters doesn't spoil the strong male characters for me... um, it just doesn't. Much like lack of chocolate, while tragic in its own right, is not going to spoil my champagne.
Mer
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 02:45 pm (UTC)Looking at Connor, about whom I have no overwhelming feelings of either hatred or woobieness, when he returned from Quortoth he really was a stereotypical victim of abuse - something which, within our culture, is more typically associated with females than males. If we look at his behaviour - the way he clings to his abuser and blames himself for everything that happened, whilst at the same time lashing out at his 'rescuers', more often verbally than physically considering his 'superpowers' - to me, these are stereotypically female behaviours. Even his sexual precociousness (sp?) - see his thing with Cordy - is more feminine than masculine when resulting from physical rather than sexual abuse.
To cut a long story short - I really think that just because the actor has a dick isn't a good reason to see them as male on an meta level - see Spike in Season 6. For me Connor was more female than male, and thus the arguement about misogny is at best narrow minded and at worst completely wrong.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 07:02 am (UTC)Although you could then reasonably ask whether there's a misogynistic component to choosing men to play those female roles, especially on a show that's already got more men than women.
I don't think so -- I think at most there's a convenience factor to reducing the automatic horror/repudiation response to seeing those things happen to a woman. It lets you do the story line without engendering the criticism that merely showing the image does more harm than criticising it does good. And mostly I think it's exactly that subverting the stereotypes thing that Joss has been praised for re: sexism in other contents. But I can understand why someone might feel differently.
Mer
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 06:51 am (UTC)I do think TBQ has a good point that magic in the Buffyverse started out as a symbol for lesbianism, so when magic suddenly started meaning "bad addictive corrupting thing" people were not on crack to think maybe that meant lesbianism = bad addictive corrupting thing. But TBQ thinks, and I agree, that that wasn't the intent, they were just changing metaphors. (Maybe because once the lesbians come out, there's no longer need for coding, so that one had gone as far as it could go.)
Mer
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 07:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:The Angel/Women/Daughter Essay
Date: 2004-04-22 04:18 pm (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/users/inlovewithnight/30179.html
Re: The Angel/Women/Daughter Essay
Date: 2004-04-23 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 05:50 pm (UTC)I did have problems with the gender stuff in Buffy, seasons 6 and 7, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 07:05 am (UTC)Mer
no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 07:18 am (UTC)I would have loved to see an S5 with Lilah and the Cordy who existed before the writers started fucking with her. It didn't happen, but I think it was a case of meta/actor issues, not of sexist storytelling.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 07:51 am (UTC)There might be a little sexism, if not misogyny, in the way they turned Cordy into St. Cordy, but mostly I think that was trying out out Buffy Buffy instead of having Angel love her differently.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-04-24 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 07:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-24 12:40 pm (UTC)But back to Connor. On one of the possible readings of the story, Angel the Series is a story of Angel, the man (vampire), and all the other reflect him in one way or another. On this level, Connor as a reflection of Angel – younger, may be his better, more innocent part – as Dawn was Buffy’s. On this level, gender reversal wouldn’t have worked at all. I reread my comment, and now I am not sure, if I said what I meant to.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 07:24 am (UTC)Mer