![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two questions
1. What happens to potentials after they age out? Once they are old enough that they know they won't be called, what do they do? From what we see of Kendra, they've been raised to deny their emotions and not to know how to relate to the larger world. It's all dutydutyduty. How do they ever acclimate themselves to the rest of the world? I can imagine some of them becoming Watchers--Lydia, for example, could have been a potential at one time. But obviously they can't all go into that line of work.
Also, as a sort of corollary to that question, from what I can tell, the WC does a really bad job of finding all the potentials, since Buffy, Faith, Rona, Chao-Ahn, and aaaaalll those girls who were empowered by Willow's spell in "Chosen" had no contact with the WC. And was Giles trying to actively find little baseball girl and the girl in the trailer and all the other girls who became Slayers that day? If they're just going about their business, wouldn't the First have been after them?
Any thoughts?
2. I'm going to ramble a bit about this here because I don't want to get into another fight on whedonesque.
So there's this discussion about whether Angel was a better show than Buffy (it wasn't, but I'm not going to argue with someone over their own taste ;) ). What I'm finding really fascinating about the discussion is that the guys in the thread are all saying they liked Angel better because there are more strong male characters to relate to.
I think the main reason I'm finding it so interesting is because Joss has specifically said that he wanted men to be able to relate to Buffy. He talks in the Equality Now speech about how he wants men to find things to relate to in a woman's story, things they might not be comfortable embracing otherwise.
Besides, as a woman, I've been inundated with male stories from birth, and I have zero problem relating to men. For instance, Spike is the character I most relate to out of the whole universe (even if Buffy's my favorite, I don't start relating to her at all until her commitment to protecting her sister and her struggles with clinical depression in the later seasons. Early-seasons!Buffy and I have nothing in common). Any given book in lit class or any show that I watch, it's a toss-up whether it'll be a woman character or a man who I most relate to. I mean, favorite literary character ever? Quentin Compson. I have nothing in common with Caddy.
I've always found it endlessly fascinating that women can always relate to male characters but men can't relate to women. It's all about the ways in which our culture privileges male stories and marginalizes female ones. I definitely plan on making a commitment to having my sons read/watch stories from the female perspective so that they can learn to relate. There are tons of awesome young adult books out there with girls as heroes, and then there’s shows like Buffy and Veronica Mars when they get a little older. I want my sons to have no problem with embracing Buffy or Meg's adventures in A Wrinkle in Time or Mary Lennox's transformation in The Secret Garden or Mara's courage and resourcefulness in Mara: Daughter of the Nile (my favorite book in my early teens, and one that's basically a historical spy novel that I think would be awesome for both genders, but the title discourages guys from picking it up). Obviously, I want my daughters to relate to boys and men, too, but they'll have no problem picking that up--it's what our culture teaches them to do from birth.
I don't know, I guess I just found it discouraging that all those guys can't relate to women. I'm always more disappointed to see sexism or racism or just plain cluelessness on whedonesque precisely because I expect more of the people who embrace those shows, and even though this isn't nearly on the level of the arguments I've gotten into over there with guys who think objectifying women is no big deal, it still disappoints me.
So my question is: am I absolutely ridiculous to be disappointed?
Plus, I think I'm a bit annoyed because every show/movie/book ever has strong male characters for them to relate to. Ever. Show. Ever.
Also, as a sort of corollary to that question, from what I can tell, the WC does a really bad job of finding all the potentials, since Buffy, Faith, Rona, Chao-Ahn, and aaaaalll those girls who were empowered by Willow's spell in "Chosen" had no contact with the WC. And was Giles trying to actively find little baseball girl and the girl in the trailer and all the other girls who became Slayers that day? If they're just going about their business, wouldn't the First have been after them?
Any thoughts?
2. I'm going to ramble a bit about this here because I don't want to get into another fight on whedonesque.
So there's this discussion about whether Angel was a better show than Buffy (it wasn't, but I'm not going to argue with someone over their own taste ;) ). What I'm finding really fascinating about the discussion is that the guys in the thread are all saying they liked Angel better because there are more strong male characters to relate to.
I think the main reason I'm finding it so interesting is because Joss has specifically said that he wanted men to be able to relate to Buffy. He talks in the Equality Now speech about how he wants men to find things to relate to in a woman's story, things they might not be comfortable embracing otherwise.
Besides, as a woman, I've been inundated with male stories from birth, and I have zero problem relating to men. For instance, Spike is the character I most relate to out of the whole universe (even if Buffy's my favorite, I don't start relating to her at all until her commitment to protecting her sister and her struggles with clinical depression in the later seasons. Early-seasons!Buffy and I have nothing in common). Any given book in lit class or any show that I watch, it's a toss-up whether it'll be a woman character or a man who I most relate to. I mean, favorite literary character ever? Quentin Compson. I have nothing in common with Caddy.
I've always found it endlessly fascinating that women can always relate to male characters but men can't relate to women. It's all about the ways in which our culture privileges male stories and marginalizes female ones. I definitely plan on making a commitment to having my sons read/watch stories from the female perspective so that they can learn to relate. There are tons of awesome young adult books out there with girls as heroes, and then there’s shows like Buffy and Veronica Mars when they get a little older. I want my sons to have no problem with embracing Buffy or Meg's adventures in A Wrinkle in Time or Mary Lennox's transformation in The Secret Garden or Mara's courage and resourcefulness in Mara: Daughter of the Nile (my favorite book in my early teens, and one that's basically a historical spy novel that I think would be awesome for both genders, but the title discourages guys from picking it up). Obviously, I want my daughters to relate to boys and men, too, but they'll have no problem picking that up--it's what our culture teaches them to do from birth.
I don't know, I guess I just found it discouraging that all those guys can't relate to women. I'm always more disappointed to see sexism or racism or just plain cluelessness on whedonesque precisely because I expect more of the people who embrace those shows, and even though this isn't nearly on the level of the arguments I've gotten into over there with guys who think objectifying women is no big deal, it still disappoints me.
So my question is: am I absolutely ridiculous to be disappointed?
no subject
no subject
I gotta say, I've pretty much swung the other way, so maybe I have no right to be disappointed by guys who can't relate to female heroes. Because I'm at the point where I can only very rarely get into a show with no strong females in it. That's why AtS doesn't appeal to me too much. Especially once Lilah died.
It didn't used to be that way. Like most girls, I grew up reading about boys and girls as protagonists, and I was fine with either of them. But now, I'm getting more and more particular and I'm just tired of watching men save the day.
It's like Angel's character is the classic "dark hero seeking redemption". And, wow, boring to me. Been done.
Xena, though, is basically the same character. Dark hero seeking redemption. But she fascinates me because she's a woman. And it's different. And I'm finally seeing a woman in a stereotypically male archetype.
So, yeah, I'm at a point where I very rarely watch/read anything which doesn't have a strong female character in it. It just doesn't hold my interest.
no subject
It's like Angel's character is the classic "dark hero seeking redemption". And, wow, boring to me. Been done. I love a good redemption story, but Angel was too much of the hero. I like him when he's interacting with Darla and Spike, and I like it when he's being petty or dorky, and I like it when Cordy's calling him out on something. But yeah, as a character on his own? Bo-ring.
But she fascinates me because she's a woman. And it's different. And I'm finally seeing a woman in a stereotypically male archetype. Yes. You're right; it's totally different.
I think there's a big difference in it not holding your interest and you not being able to do it, though. Maybe that's just me. It's important that we learn to put ourselves in the shoes of those who aren't like us. So if a POC told me that they can no longer watch shows without a strong POC character, I totally wouldn't think there's anything wrong with that--they already know how to identify with white people. They've been doing it all their lives.
Also: Lilah was awesome. ;)
no subject
And I'm a fan of Angel being a dork. When he gets too serious, I start to roll my eyes. :)
no subject
Honestly, I think the whole Angel brooding thing is almost worth it, just because it gave us Cordy and Wes acting out Bangel: "I love you so much, I almost forgot to brood!" Greatest. Clip. Ever.