(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

So I was thinking about Bechdel's law earlier. In a comic strip by Alison Bechdel, a character explains that she only watches a movie if it
"one, it has to have at least two women in it, who
two, talk to each other about,
three, something besides a man."

And then I was thinking about Firefly, as you do, and I was thinking... does Firefly ever meet the standard? Even in Inara's lesbian sex scene they talk about men. Inara and Kaylee have conversations - about Mal, or occasionally Simon. Does Zoe ever converse alone with anyone other than Mal or Wash? And then I was thinking about Angel, and I'm pretty sure that fails in almost every episode (many of them right at the first step.) And then I was thinking about Buffy, and then I got depressed, because I have a sinking feeling that even Buffy the Vampire Slayer wouldn't meet the standard more than 50% of the time.

Dear f-list, please tell me I am wrong and give me evidence?

Also! Fandom questions!


Do you regret taking on a [info]fanfic100 table? Does it bore you? Do you forget it? Do you have a tingling sense that you *should* write for your prompts and not do it?

I don't regret it, because I'm still fiddling around with bits and bobs that wil eventually be published. It doesn't bore me because no-one's making me do it; I do occasionally forget it because I'm so damn busy at uni, and I do get tingling guilty moments every now and then. I'm glad I took it on, though, because even though it's a big challenge, it's good for me. :)

Can I directly blame *you* for getting me my first table and the fact that I've followed up with an encore of 306 active prompts?

No! Because I told you not to and everything! I am completely innocent of all blame! :D


Uh....how do you feel about Simon/River as a ship? Complete squick, that-sort-of-works-with-canon-but-no, or they're-so-fucked-up-of-course-they-are?

Hnn. Remember those conversations we've been having about fandom breaking squicks? Right. Well, Simon/River doesn't make me want to throw up in my mouth any more (although it sort of did squick me the first time I thought about it.) As it stands now, I understand why people 'ship it (especially with some of those deleted scenes) and it does sort of work with canon, and I'm not totally devoted to any other Simon or River 'ships so it doesn't bother me too much, but it doesn't really appeal to me all that much, either.

They're still pretty damn fucked up, though, which is why it in some ways works for me.

And, bonus question: writing, first person or third person?

Ah... original fiction and poetry sometimes first; fanfic, NEVER in first person. Ever. I can't even read fanfic in first person, that's how much I hate it. I do like second person sometimes though.


If you ship Rose/Doctor at all, which is the more OTPish ship--Rose/Nine or Rose/Ten?
Definitely Rose/Nine. I enjoy Rose/Ten well enough, but I really deeply believed in Rose/Nine. He was so damaged and needy and he kind of fixated on Rose, whereas Ten is more his own person and he's way more aloof from Rose, which does not OTPishness make.

Comments

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

I now have the perverse temptation to write first-person YWfic. :P

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*sob* Don't hurt me that way! Because you know I'd have to read it!

Nah, I have faith in you, and there are pieces, one or two, that I've read it in and enjoyed. But there's nothing that'll put me off quicker unless I really, really trust the writer.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

Well, I did say it was perverse. *sheepish* I don't actually have a bunny for it, even. My first X-Men idea -- well, idea that seized me and wanted to be a story, as opposed to wacky private often-Mary-Sueish nonsense -- was first-person... and for that matter, involved a bunch of resurrections including Illyana, a cure for Legacy, and an uberpowered (canonically, but still) main character. While I didn't worry about the POV, I did know enough to realize many of these were considered warning signs. It went over remarkably well, all things considered. *g* But that hasn't happened with most other fandoms.

But I really appreciate the expression of confidence.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Comics fandoms are so often exempt from many of the usual fandom no-nos. There was a post aways back about the DCU, someone showed that all of the 30 standard "crack" plots were canonical somewhere in the DCU. I don't know as much about Marcel but I would't be surprised if it was the same!

Ah, you know I adore your stuff. :)

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

Wellllll, comics fandom was also the only place I KNEW any fandom no-nos at the time. Curing the Legacy virus and bringing back Illyana were comic-plot-specific and kind of... among the common eye-rollers. But I did it differently and, I flatter myself, reasonably well for a first shot.

I will note that there was an actual challenge to write oneself (really oneself, albeit as a mutant so as to have an excuse to be there) into Generation X. I'm not sure if this was a response to Mary Sues or not, but I'm pretty sure it did produce some good stories.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

That's actually kind of nifty.

Man, I love fandom... because of the wonderful things that it does.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

What bothers me a lot is, especially in kids movies, unless it's Specifically! A! Girls'! Movie! girls are only ever mothers or love interests. It's sad.

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

Or even if it wasn't intended to be a girls' movie, the very presence of a female main character makes it so...

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Gah! I'm fully not into the zomg patriarchy! Gender is entirely a social construct! Sex is rape! stereotypical brand of feminism but the male dominance of pop culture is kind of disgraceful....

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Before anyone flames me note I said stereotypical. I know most people don't think like that.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*tears out hair* I don't want to flame you, honey, but you just KEEP saying stuff like that. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. And the more people bitch that the patriarchy isn't a problem anymore the more pissed off I get. There is male privilege, there is inequality, and the more chickenshit women back away from "feminism" because of stereotypes advertised by other women who don't know what the shit they're talking about the worse it's going to get.

Every time a woman buys into the notion of feminism as the province of hairy-legged angry lesbians, she buys into a notion men have succeeding in spreading, propagating the idea of feminism as something to be ashamed of. Relatedly, there's nothing wrong with being angry about injustice; women just aren't supposed to get angry. Well fuck that: if I want to be pissed off and confrontational I will be, and it shouldn't reflect on me as a woman.

For a more coherent discussion of this, I highly recommend this essay: In Defense of Bitterness (http://heocwaeth.blogspot.com/2006/01/in-defense-of-bitterness.html).

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I was insuring against anyone thinking I WAS one of the mythical feminazis for caring about it, that's all X_o

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

my point exactly. why should you/anyone be ashamed of being a feminist? be ashamed of caring that the media is totally male-dominated and such a simple standard is so hard to meet? every time you or I or anyone covers their ass like that, adds a disclaimer, and qualifies their opinions, it's buying into that bullshit. grrrr.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Hmm...


Relatedly, I don't know about anyone else but I have a problem with calling wanting sexual equality "feminism" simply because the word implies it's only about women. Granted, originally it was, but now society's at a stage where we have to start dealing with situations where men are at a disadvantage-things like boys' underachievement at school, men's lower life expectancy, men being stereotyped as child molesters etc, as well as the fields where women are disadvantaged. It needs a new name!

[derrick-reeves.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not a feminist either, so perhaps this will be more credible:

Boys underachieving at school will be a problem when and if school becomes anything more than a prison that strives to turn children into status symbols or slaves for powerful men.

Men's lower life expectancy is a sign of over-success. Historically, men secured the lion's share of the luxuries of a household (fat, sugar, alcohol, tobacco, transport) and thus enjoyed a higher standard of living. Today, too much fat, sugar and alcohol and the view that private transport is a right and a pleasure are rather likely to kill you. About the only thing that men are getting right these days is smoking.

Stereotypes of men as child molesters and abusers exist for a reason. The problem really isn't the wariness, it's the demonisation of people who have these problems. Rather than treat with child abusers as the victims of patriarchal society that they undoubtedly are, the patriarchs turn them into perverts who are just "wrong" (if they're caught; until then they're model citizens), because society must be right.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Boys underachieving at school will be a problem when and if school becomes anything more than a prison that strives to turn children into status symbols or slaves for powerful men.

And historically education has been extremely male-focused; in fact, there is still unconscious discrimination in most education systems (including our own.) The fact that girls are now doing better says something about girls, and about boys, but it's not a problem of sexism in the system.

The problem really isn't the wariness, it's the demonisation of people who have these problems.

I can't agree more. Society's unwillingness to take responsibility for rapists and child abusers, and the preferred tactic of separating them from humanity, is useless to the victims and it's useless to solving the problem. Until we accept that they are part of society, and society can do something to change them, we won't see any real change. It's very frustrating, because as soon as society admits they can do something to change the "others", they have to admit that they are partially responsible, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

And I do think that is related to the patriarchy, because men don't want to take responsibility for the actions of other men; not that women don't participate in society's abdication of responsibility en masse, because they do.

I feel sorry for men who teach primary school and kindergarten, though.

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

Amen, sistuh. ;)

Sorry I don't have anything more eloquent to say on that...but yeah, totally agree. :P

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I can't take credit for it myself; it's the classic definition of feminism and I can't find who to attribut it to but it's been around for awhile. :D

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

The worst thing to me is that Joss is generally hailed as a highly pro-feminist creator; there are screenings of Serenity for Equality Now, all that kind of thing. And Buffy is usually talked about as a pro-feminist show... and it still has some underlying anti-female messages, totally subconscious I'm sure, that scare the crap out of me. Seriously, this is the best we can do, even at stuff that's marketed as women-friendly and/or equal-opportunity?

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

THAT was Alison Bechdel? I remember seeing that cartoon in Bitch -- or at least it was quoted -- years ago, but hadn't connected it with the Alison Bechdel who was interviewed in the latest issue about her new memoir.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I don't know anything about her apart from that, but they do seem to be one & the same, yeah. :)

[melata-fic.livejournal.com]

I love that rule. But it is so hard to actually enforce.

Fanfic in first person works sometimes, if the canon has first person. This is the only excuse.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

It can be hard but it so shouldn't be. I mean, it's not like it insists that every woman has a line of feminist dialogue, or even that there's a woman with a main role, or anything. All it wants is a conversation - I mean, I don't think there are many texts that don't do this for men. *glum*

Oh, yeah, actually, good point. I will read Scrubs fanfic in first person because the canon is in first person, that's very true.

[melata-fic.livejournal.com]

One conversation that is not about a relationship. That's all that the rule requires. But it is surprisingly hard.

Buffy probably achieves that once in a while, maybe... they talk about the monster, surely? But, like you say, there's stuff I'm not entirely comfortable with, particularly in later seasons.

For men, there is probably never this much of a problem. You've always got stereotypical conversations about sport to fall back on, at least.

Mmm, it's always best to go with the canon POV, actually. Unless one's efforts sound like a pale imitation, in which case it's best to go with third person omniscient.

And there's always the good author caveat. *grins* Or the experimental technique, in which the story has to actually be that POV in order to work (say, a mystery, or something central to the character). But, yes.

(Actually, my own rules are kinda flexible. *grin*)

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Actually, Buffy is surprisingly bad for this. Think about it: most of the time when Buffy is talking to Willow, they're talking about Angel. Or Xander. "Work" discussions are usually held in co-ed groups. Anya: only talks to the other girls, alone, about Xander. Dawn/Buffy convos might pass, but that's in a completely different context (familial.)

Hell, even a show like Bones fails this in situations where it shouldn't. Female boss has three subordinates, two male, one female. 90% of her solo conversations with male subordinates: work-related. 90% of conversations with female subordinate: about men, even though they have exactly as much narrative and situational reason to be talking about work.

[melata-fic.livejournal.com]

Hmm, true. That's rather worrying. Mind you, I don't expect much from a show that puts one female character out there to kick ass and take names... and then... yeah. You know better than I do.

You make me feel tempted to watch a show or even an episode, and tally up different conversations. Hmm.

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[skadi.livejournal.com]

Um ... well...

I ... I can't hear you! LA LA LA!


...but I don't want Joss to be one of the stupid guys. I love his usual respect for feminism. Crud.

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Believe you me, I adore Joss' stuff and think he is wonderful, and I'm really excited about Wonder Woman. He scripted X-men and X2 as well, IIRC, and they have some good girl moments. And I really respect his conscious devotion to the cause of feminism.

BUT. I think he has subconscious issues that he really has difficulty getting away from. Primarily, in Buffy/Angel and even Firefly, women almost without exception are punished for having sex; either that, or if they're sexually free in any way, they're demons. Buffy sleeps with Angel; he loses his soul. Buffy sleeps with Riley; okay, not too much obvious punishment there, but then you look at that episode, I can't remember the title, but the one in the old orphanage? Buffy sleeps with Spike... ahahaahaha. Faith, a sexually strong woman, is constantly being abused by other characters for it and Faith the character does suffer from her unwillingness to abide by social strictures; it's what gets her into trouble. When Faith is at her most gorgeous and sexy (I just rewatched a bunch of Faith episodes and drooled like a fanboy. Can you tell? My love for her is so shallow...) she's usually being evil, like in Bad Girls. Or in Angel when she's in the club, dancing like crazy and causing a fight. Cordelia has not one but TWO, count 'em, TWO demon pregnancies and never gets to sleep with Angel. I just re-watched "Expecting" and at the end Cordelia's talking about what she learned from the experience, and she has a line, "Sex is bad", and Angel says "Nah, we all knew that already." And they're meant to be joking but in a deeper sense they're really, really not: Buffy and Angel have subtextually huge, huge issues with sex and female sexuality that you can't get away from. "Dirty Girls", which is the episode where Caleb shows up in S7 Buffy? So Caleb's supposed to be all evil and everything, right? Except... in many ways, Caleb gives voice to all the subconscious messages of the show. It's creepy and it's frightening and it's there.

But at the same time, I love Buffy and it really does have its strengths and I rewatch it frequently and all that jazz. It's just, you know, every time someone says Joss is a feminist I think about that, because he is, but he also has major subconscious problems with female sexuality and a virgin/whore complex. In a major way.

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[skadi.livejournal.com]

Man, you are very, very right. I haven't watched Buffy for a bit, so I haven't seen all that evidence for quite a bit of time. But you're right.

Phooey.

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I know, it's so depressing. I try not to think about it too hard. But he really does have the best motives in the world...

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[darthsappho.livejournal.com]

I just rewatched "Who Are You?" and in that, Faith's sex with Riley seems to be the pivotal point where she starts turning away from evil. So sex is not always a bad thing in Buffy. I really think it's more that people in Joss shows get punished for anything and everything.

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*considers* Well, it's been a while since I watched "Who Are You?", so I'll have to take your word for it. And, yeah, a couple of people have said that it's more that Joss can't leave well enough alone, everyone has to be miserable, which is, well, true; but I also think there is a distinct correlation between sex and female sexuality, and a kind of moral ambiguity or evil. Allow me to reproduce something I said to someone else this evening:

(weyrlady was quibbling with my examples, which were not best thought out and specifically said that when Buffy & Angel have sex Angel is the one who's punished, and I responded:
I played pretty fast and loose with the examples, but Buffy sleeps with Angel -> Angel loses his soul -> major angst for Buffy. Angel threatens and stalks Buffy, etc etc etc; I mean, yes, technically it happens to Angel, but Angel losing his soul is really about Buffy: the consequences of Buffy sleeping with Angel are dreadful, and I think associating Bad Things with Sex is a repeating pattern. Riley's pretty dodgy, agreed (but then, Riley bored me so intensely I don't really remember anything about his eps. :P) Buffy gets condemned by everyone for sleeping with Spike, a demon; by contrast, when Xander sleeps with demons, it's either funny or it's not an issue. And Faith... I'm going to go back and rewatch all of Faith's arcs sometime soon. I love her to pieces. But almost without exception, when Faith is shown as being sexually powerful - Bad Girls, Dirty Girls, the episodes in Angel where she shows up - her sexuality is associated with her moral ambiguity. And thinking about it I can come up with a few other examples of that, too; Vamp!Willow is more highly sexualised than demure trainee witch!Willow; Lilah, another evil woman, is strongly sexualised (and also comes to a sticky end.)

I guess if I were to rephrase the whole thing, I would say that overwhelmingly in the Jossverse women having sex and women with strong sexualities are associated with bad stuff happening; they may be evil or morally ambiguous women (Faith & Lilah), the sex may have unpleasant consequences (Cordelia & Buffy) or there may just be a simple double standard, but I think there's enough evidence there to suggest that there is a problem.

Basically I think it's a trend thing. *shrug* ymmv, as ever.

Re: Joss Whedon and Bechdel's law

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Like labellementeuse says: he definitely thinks he's feminist. But there are huge unconscious issues with most of his work. And they're really freakin' scary ones. Of course, it kind of gets mixed up with his inability to portray ongoing happy adult relationships, but the women usually get the bad end of the deal even when it's that coming through.

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Ah. I totally agree. Not that I've seen more than three seconds of Rose/Ten yet, but Rose/Nine just gets me in such a way that I feel can't be replicated, no matter how amazing David Tennant is.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

He really is wonderful- but he takes a very different line with the Doctor (as is traditional with regenerating), so inevitably their dynamic does change. It's still fabulous - I love the latest episode and there's a great moment in there - but it's different.

*squicks out* H/H icon in my journal!!!! BAD GIRL!

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Sorry. It's kind of a joke anyways. And I thought that keyword was for the Rose time and space icon anyways. Whoops XD

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

Pfft! I'll blame you anyway. *blames*

But the Rose/Ten vs Rose/Nine is very interesting. I haven't managed to get my hands on any Ten episodes yet, and so have been holding myself back from DW fandom, but I hadn't actually *considered* how Doctor-morphing would affect shipping habits.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

But you can't! I disclaim all responsibility! There's evidence in comments in your journal somewhere!!!!

It's actually really interesting the way it changed. In many ways I was expecting to be able to carry on regardless, and to some extent I can - there's definitely still chemistry there - but like I said to bad_mushroom, because the Tennant regeneration is a significantly different Doctor to Eccleston Doctor, the dynamic can't help but be different.

[derrick-reeves.livejournal.com]

Good show. Evidence is never something that to look for: just get a scientist to find it for you.

As for Buffy, I tend to agree with your recollection. You might want to give the series a break, though - if it's meeting the law at 50%, then that's equivalent in terms of time to a feature film meeting the law. (It's not as though there are very many conversations in Buffy between two men about something other than a woman, after all.)

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

(It's not as though there are very many conversations in Buffy between two men about something other than a woman, after all.)

Yes, but there are so few male characters that it's often hard for them to not be talking about the other, female characters (and they do talk about other things quite a lot, I believe.) The real issue with Buffy is that it's supposed to be this great ground-breakingly feminist show, and in many ways it is, but in so many scary ways it isn't,and no-one bothers to think about them because we have it lodged in our heads that Buffy=girl power.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

As for Buffy, I tend to agree with your recollection. You might want to give the series a break, though - if it's meeting the law at 50%, then that's equivalent in terms of time to a feature film meeting the law. (It's not as though there are very many conversations in Buffy between two men about something other than a woman, after all.)

Oh, I do; I adore Buffy & the rest of Joss' work. It's just that every time I hear someone cite Buffy as this wonderful flagship of feminism, I kind of wince, because in some ways yes it absolutely is, and then in other ways it's hugely flawed.

WRT: men: Actually, I was thinking about Firefly (just 'cos it's so much smaller than Buffy & therefore more manageable) and thinking that in some ways Joss succeeds in levelling the playing field somewhat by turning the tables on the guys. Which is something I can get behind, possibly? I don't know. :P