A link

[lirazel]

I know a lot of you keep up with metafandom, so possibly you've all already read this long ago, but I just now stumbled upon it and I MUST SHARE.

Fiction, gender, women's pain, and MAN PAIN

If the Buffyverse, BSG, or gender stuff is relevant to your interests (and I know at least a few of you who are interested in ALL OF THE ABOVE), go and read this. It talks about our different reactions to men and women's pain and also explains why I can't stand Wesley Wyndham-Pryce and why I love Buffy Summers, among other things. Also there is Kara love and Adama hate, and even though (as you probably know), I'm pretty apathetic when it comes to Kara, I know a lot of you aren't and love her for very good reasons. So go forth and read!

Comments

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Once again, word.

Fandom sexism really is a big deal. Gabrielleabelle's post was mostly about that and I agreed with her.

But this "man pain" thing...I just disagree with it being associated with "men" at all. I don't think there's anything gendered about the pain that the author describes. Maybe because there are generally more male protagonists than female protagonists, it's more often associated with men.

Both Adama and Starbuck were given butt loads of protagonist privilege, more than anyone else in a show that was rife with characters exhibiting appalling behaviors and not having to compensate for it. Truly, to top everyone else on that show in that regard was a feat.)

Yes. I've wondered at times whether this was deliberate. At TWOP (and I almost never go there), Jacob (one of the few reviewers who I think tries to be even-handed and has interesting, if often very esoteric, things to say) seems to think that the characters' egocnetrism is something we're supposed to see behind--that it's not necessarily that they're bad people but that they are definitely blinded by their power. Jane Espenson's "Dirty Hands," where Adama lines up Tyrol's wife and some others to be shot, seems to want us to go there. And certainly it's 100% deliberate in Baltar's case, which shows that the writers are sensitive to the idea. But there isn't that much other evidence (that I can think of) that the characters' egocentrism is really MEANT to be a big deal.

And that's part of the reason why I can't get behind some stuff--we were supposed to, I guess, cheer when Tyrol strangled Tory (I haven't really been able to come up with another explanation for the way that scene was executed, and the way no one called Tyrol on his peace-destroying rage), but it didn't seem like Tory was all that much worse (if worse at all) than the vast majority of the characters on the show, and less deserving of a chance to explain herself.

As I said before, I do think that some protagonist privilege is okay. A story can genuinely not follow every single character in a story world. The deaths of the people on the Olympic Carrier happening to give Lee angst in 33 doesn't bother me. But the way the entire Lee/Kara/Sam/Dee stuff was done mostly to give Kara angst, and, crucially, that she didn't seem to feel that bad about it (whereas Lee, to his credit, at least *felt really bad*) is a bigger issue. I wonder if this is because the former was a momentary decision, and one unavoidable in war, and the latter was an ongoing thing?

Anyway. Probably part of the reason Baltar is likeable (to me, anyway) is that his narcissism is called out so thoroughly for comedy, whereas most of the other characters' isn't.

And the Gwen thing is baffling to me. Might as well complain about Dennis the Ghost or the millionaire of Season 1 AtS not being made regulars.

Yeah. And why did Willow get so many more scenes than Larry? It's because Willow has her WOMAN PAIN, I know it!

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. I've wondered at times whether this was deliberate. At TWOP (and I almost never go there), Jacob (one of the few reviewers who I think tries to be even-handed and has interesting, if often very esoteric, things to say) seems to think that the characters' egocnetrism is something we're supposed to see behind--that it's not necessarily that they're bad people but that they are definitely blinded by their power.

Occasionally I would get that, and that could work except that they kept having people display these attitudes in all aspects of their lives. There were just so many instances where I'd walk away with "Wow. These are really awful people." It at times reached the level that I didn't actually care whether or not the humans survived.

But the way the entire Lee/Kara/Sam/Dee stuff was done mostly to give Kara angst, and, crucially, that she didn't seem to feel that bad about it (whereas Lee, to his credit, at least *felt really bad*) is a bigger issue. I cannot express exactly how much I loathed the Quad of Doom. I hated the storyline. I hated the way it was handled. And it made me want to roll my eyes and grit my teeth at the whole pilot 'love' thing ever after. It made me dislike both Apollo and Starbuck, but, you're right. Apollo eventually seemed to 'get' that they'd been assholes. Starbuck never cared. She seemed to think it was perfectly okay to disregard everyone else, 'cause she had her pain, y'know? Spouses need to just suck it up and, deal, okay. (Then the ending flashback that she and Apollo basically -- nearly -- did the exact same thing to his brother? Put me down as someone who was glad that Apollo and Starbuck weren't given a shippy ending.)

One thought I've returned to on a number of shows with a number of characters in a number of fandoms is that motivation isn't justification. Just because I can understand why a character does something doesn't make that characters actions okay Something can be comprehensible and reprehesible at the exact same time. If you can pull that off and still have likability, you've done a really neat trick. If you can't, then deal with then recognize the fact that not everyone is going to cheer that character on in every situation.

Baltar kind of falls into the same category as True Blood Jason Stackhouse. Both of them do terrible things, but they never seem to realize beforehand that their choice is going to be disastrous and they cannot seem to help themselves. Add in the funny and you can still thing that they're walking catastrophe areas, but you can enjoy watching them from the safe distance of a television set.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

OOps! That was me. I forgot to sign in.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Ha, no problem.

For some reason, I didn't mind the quadrangle of death while watching. I zoomed through S3 on DVD and so never really stopped long enough to get upset. I never really hated anyone while watching the show, to be honest; it's more in thinking about it that certain characters stand out to me and make me angry.

One thought I've returned to on a number of shows with a number of characters in a number of fandoms is that motivation isn't justification. Just because I can understand why a character does something doesn't make that characters actions okay Something can be comprehensible and reprehesible at the exact same time. If you can pull that off and still have likability, you've done a really neat trick. If you can't, then deal with then recognize the fact that not everyone is going to cheer that character on in every situation.

I agree with this to an extent. The "to an extent" is, I think, partly that I tend to empathize with characters more than, perhaps, I should: I can still like characters who are in some respects awful people. When characters don't really own up to badness they're involved in, I do make note of it, and if I think the narrative is explicitly condoning them then I get angry. But if I don't think a character is being privileged as being "right" or "admirable" then I really don't mind. I am full of sympathy for pretty much everyone in season six of BtVS, for example, even though I understand why others aren't. BSG as an example did a good job sometimes of making it clear that these were just people, and that we shouldn't take their position as the right one. Other times, it seemed to side a little too much with the characters. It's a delicate science.