(no subject)
Aug. 25th, 2017 08:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Not sure what I think about THIS.
I honestly don't care who people sleep with, as long as it is consentual and no coercion is involved. The difficulty with power-imbalance scenarios, ie. boss/employee, show-runner/actor, showrunner/writer, director/actor, president/intern, teacher/student is...one person has the power, the other doesn't. Which means, it isn't always clear whether coercion of some sort, overt or non-overt, was actually involved. And in regards to women...men have unfortunately persuaded women that they'll get ahead if they have sex with them. The old cliche..sleep your way to the top didn't just pop up out of nowhere. And that's even if they aren't married. If they're married...it's well worse.
And I've had friends who have slept with married men in power. Known women who got ahead by sleeping with their bosses. So, it's not like this isn't prevalent, it is. Every organization I've been, it's happened. I remember taking a course on Human Resources at NYU once, and they asked if anyone in the class had seen a situation where people were having sex in the workplace, slept with their bosses..And well, I rose my hand.
In some workplaces, it's grounds for dismissal. And in mine, people have gotten fired over it. The issue, to be clear, is not cheating on your wife or husband. The only people who should care about that are the people being cheated on. No, the issue is...sleeping with someone that you can fire, dismiss, suspend, get kicked out of school, fail, or financially hurt in some manner. Sleeping with people in the workplace to begin with is a bit hazardous for multiple reasons...add that layer to it, and well...Also it effects others work not to mention your customers and end product. So, in short, it's unethical.
The other problem is that men can do this easier than women in some respects, because a)they don't have quite the same physical repercussions (women can get HPV aka cancer from sex, urinary track infections, pregnant, STDs (although so can men, apparently there's been a rise in syphillus cases of late...) b)they are often the one's in power. Note, 75-80% of television show-runners are male. That's beginning to change, but slowly. In the 1990s and early 00's it was 90-99% male show-runners. Also, most directors in Hollywood are male.
In the power dynamic of the Whedon/Kai Cole marriage, Whedon clearly held the power. In the power dynamic of the Bill Cosby household, Bill held the power. As Whedon would state it's not really about the sex folks, it's about the power.
And that takes it outside the realm of celebrity gossip and puts a bit of different spin on things. Particularly in this day and age, when we have President who has had numerous sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations against him, yet was elected in spite of them. Sort of makes people twitchy.
Do I think Whedon did it? Yes. It tracks. Do I think Whedon is feminist? Yes. Do I think both are possible? Yes. People tend to be complicated things, whose actions often contradict each other. We shouldn't necessarily be defined entirely by one set of actions or one action. Which to be fair was one of the major themes of Whedon's iconic series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (along with all his other series, except for Marvel Agents of Shield -- which he wasn't closely involved with) -- he was constantly questioning demonizing people based on their actions. And whether people could do horrible things, yet still do heroic ones, and be redeemed. He was also constantly questioning abuses of power, specifically sexual abuses of power. And even stated that part of the reason he wrote about these things so much is he felt he'd abused his own power and was curious if he could be redeemed.
So this brings up yet another question..do we dismiss the creator's work out of hand, based solely on the creator's actions? Does Whedon's affairs with actresses on Buffy undermine his work on Buffy? Or contradict it? I don't think so. I think if anything it may shed a new light on the work.
But should we condemn the work? Should we condemn the actor? Or just the actions? Whedon seemed to state in his series that the actions needed to be condemned not the actors.
Still not sure. I see many sides. I'm trying not to be sanctimonious/self-righteous or judgemental or even preachy here. Which I think is very easy to do and the Mary Sue falls into the trap of...a bit too often for its own good.
2. THIS article about James Cameron's remarks on Wonder Woman reminded me a great deal of a conversation I'd had ages ago with a friend regarding Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The friend was explaining why she had issues with the book. She felt that the lead or title female character was how men thought women should be in order to be tough or strong.
What she said was that the character in Dragon Tattoo irritated her the same way many representations of women in this fashion do, because it takes away from women what makes us women. Her statement haunted me, because, well, I'm not girly. I am a woman, but I do not like to wear dresses, skirts, makeup, jewelry, hate heels, and painting my nails is NOT my thing. I find it uncomfortable to wear nail polish. Breeds fungus on toe-nails, and I tend to chip it away on my fingernail. I tend to be tough at times. Not overly athletic. Not really into sports at all, sports bore me. Don't like to garden (ugh, never understood the appeal of crouching in the dirt with the ants, spiders, worms and dirt...), not into sewing/knitting/embrodiery, but I like to cook, am deft hand at making a cocktail, love to draw, write, and hike.
So...I took issue with the pigeon-holing.
This is what the writer of the article states in reaction to James Cameron's negative dismissal of Wonder Woman as back-tracking.
I think both men and women need multiple representations. Not just one. In multiple roles. We should see male nurses, seamstresses, gardners, care-givers, teachers, or rather men in what seem to be traditional female roles, and vice versa.
I agree with the writer, what I found interesting about Wonder Woman, was she was in the traditional hero role, while Steve Trevor was in the traditional sidekick doomed romance role. And no one batted a lash. (Granted unrealistic, but oddly reassuring.) I felt Wonder Woman did a good job of bridging both my friend and Cameron's views.
The difficulty with Cameron's take on the female hero...is she is always very macho. Or in the case of Sara Connor in his Terminator films, she starts out in the traditional role of a waitress, then bulks up and becomes a macho gal, stoic, little emotion, and tough as nails. As if that's the only way we can show strength? Yet, in the first film, she's the opposite, and just as strong...so maybe not?
Don't get me wrong, I tend to identify more with and like the tough as nails macho heroine. But I also loved Wonder Woman. I think we need and should demand both.
The exact behavior differs, but the basic tenets sound awfully familiar. From Joss to Bill Cosby to the accusations lodged against Louis C.K. that no one seems to want to talk about, women come up against men whose behavior contradicts their reputations, at the expense of women’s bodies. If you don’t want to hear about it, or you just want to “separate the man from his work,” that’s your choice. But not everyone is willing to dismiss stories like these with justifications of “not my marriage, not my business.” In Whedon’s case, the exploitation of young women over whom he had a great deal of power, as well as the alleged emotional abuse of his partner, is our business, in that it fits into a system that favors abusers and silences women. By saying these things are not worth talking about, or that they’re “personal matters,” we become complicit in those same systems.
One man’s infidelity is gossip. A Hollywood powerhouse enjoying a reputation as an industry’s great feminist proponent who allegedly uses that position to exploit the very societal ills he is meant to be fighting–that is news. Joss Whedon helped make feminism a mainstream talking point, and we paid close attention as he did so. So you’re going to be damn sure we’ll do the same when his behavior undermines those same values on a huge scale.
I honestly don't care who people sleep with, as long as it is consentual and no coercion is involved. The difficulty with power-imbalance scenarios, ie. boss/employee, show-runner/actor, showrunner/writer, director/actor, president/intern, teacher/student is...one person has the power, the other doesn't. Which means, it isn't always clear whether coercion of some sort, overt or non-overt, was actually involved. And in regards to women...men have unfortunately persuaded women that they'll get ahead if they have sex with them. The old cliche..sleep your way to the top didn't just pop up out of nowhere. And that's even if they aren't married. If they're married...it's well worse.
And I've had friends who have slept with married men in power. Known women who got ahead by sleeping with their bosses. So, it's not like this isn't prevalent, it is. Every organization I've been, it's happened. I remember taking a course on Human Resources at NYU once, and they asked if anyone in the class had seen a situation where people were having sex in the workplace, slept with their bosses..And well, I rose my hand.
In some workplaces, it's grounds for dismissal. And in mine, people have gotten fired over it. The issue, to be clear, is not cheating on your wife or husband. The only people who should care about that are the people being cheated on. No, the issue is...sleeping with someone that you can fire, dismiss, suspend, get kicked out of school, fail, or financially hurt in some manner. Sleeping with people in the workplace to begin with is a bit hazardous for multiple reasons...add that layer to it, and well...Also it effects others work not to mention your customers and end product. So, in short, it's unethical.
The other problem is that men can do this easier than women in some respects, because a)they don't have quite the same physical repercussions (women can get HPV aka cancer from sex, urinary track infections, pregnant, STDs (although so can men, apparently there's been a rise in syphillus cases of late...) b)they are often the one's in power. Note, 75-80% of television show-runners are male. That's beginning to change, but slowly. In the 1990s and early 00's it was 90-99% male show-runners. Also, most directors in Hollywood are male.
In the power dynamic of the Whedon/Kai Cole marriage, Whedon clearly held the power. In the power dynamic of the Bill Cosby household, Bill held the power. As Whedon would state it's not really about the sex folks, it's about the power.
And that takes it outside the realm of celebrity gossip and puts a bit of different spin on things. Particularly in this day and age, when we have President who has had numerous sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations against him, yet was elected in spite of them. Sort of makes people twitchy.
Do I think Whedon did it? Yes. It tracks. Do I think Whedon is feminist? Yes. Do I think both are possible? Yes. People tend to be complicated things, whose actions often contradict each other. We shouldn't necessarily be defined entirely by one set of actions or one action. Which to be fair was one of the major themes of Whedon's iconic series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (along with all his other series, except for Marvel Agents of Shield -- which he wasn't closely involved with) -- he was constantly questioning demonizing people based on their actions. And whether people could do horrible things, yet still do heroic ones, and be redeemed. He was also constantly questioning abuses of power, specifically sexual abuses of power. And even stated that part of the reason he wrote about these things so much is he felt he'd abused his own power and was curious if he could be redeemed.
So this brings up yet another question..do we dismiss the creator's work out of hand, based solely on the creator's actions? Does Whedon's affairs with actresses on Buffy undermine his work on Buffy? Or contradict it? I don't think so. I think if anything it may shed a new light on the work.
But should we condemn the work? Should we condemn the actor? Or just the actions? Whedon seemed to state in his series that the actions needed to be condemned not the actors.
Still not sure. I see many sides. I'm trying not to be sanctimonious/self-righteous or judgemental or even preachy here. Which I think is very easy to do and the Mary Sue falls into the trap of...a bit too often for its own good.
2. THIS article about James Cameron's remarks on Wonder Woman reminded me a great deal of a conversation I'd had ages ago with a friend regarding Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The friend was explaining why she had issues with the book. She felt that the lead or title female character was how men thought women should be in order to be tough or strong.
What she said was that the character in Dragon Tattoo irritated her the same way many representations of women in this fashion do, because it takes away from women what makes us women. Her statement haunted me, because, well, I'm not girly. I am a woman, but I do not like to wear dresses, skirts, makeup, jewelry, hate heels, and painting my nails is NOT my thing. I find it uncomfortable to wear nail polish. Breeds fungus on toe-nails, and I tend to chip it away on my fingernail. I tend to be tough at times. Not overly athletic. Not really into sports at all, sports bore me. Don't like to garden (ugh, never understood the appeal of crouching in the dirt with the ants, spiders, worms and dirt...), not into sewing/knitting/embrodiery, but I like to cook, am deft hand at making a cocktail, love to draw, write, and hike.
So...I took issue with the pigeon-holing.
This is what the writer of the article states in reaction to James Cameron's negative dismissal of Wonder Woman as back-tracking.
For Cameron, it seems to be all about touting stereotypically male qualities as “strong.” He talks about how Sarah “earned the respect of the audience through pure grit.” Grit=strong. Guns=strong. Wearing pants=strong. When Cameron talks about “male Hollywood doing the same old thing,” this placement of higher value on stereotypically masculine energy is part of that, and he’s doing it himself!
Wonder Woman resonated with women because it allowed for a wider range of women to see themselves as strong. The ass-kickers are covered in Diana’s fight scenes. The determined and ambitious women are covered in Diana’s determination to stay and fight at No Man’s Land rather than sneak around the side to complete the initial mission. The softer, more nurturing women are covered in Diana’s desire to help a hungry village, her relationships with the Amazons, and her relationship with Steve Trevor, which was as balanced a film romance as I’ve ever seen.
Sarah Connor represents one way to be a strong woman. Diana of Themyscira represents the complexities and nuances that can be found in all women. Sarah’s great, but to me, Diana is better, as she’s a more versatile symbol of female strength.
I think both men and women need multiple representations. Not just one. In multiple roles. We should see male nurses, seamstresses, gardners, care-givers, teachers, or rather men in what seem to be traditional female roles, and vice versa.
I agree with the writer, what I found interesting about Wonder Woman, was she was in the traditional hero role, while Steve Trevor was in the traditional sidekick doomed romance role. And no one batted a lash. (Granted unrealistic, but oddly reassuring.) I felt Wonder Woman did a good job of bridging both my friend and Cameron's views.
The difficulty with Cameron's take on the female hero...is she is always very macho. Or in the case of Sara Connor in his Terminator films, she starts out in the traditional role of a waitress, then bulks up and becomes a macho gal, stoic, little emotion, and tough as nails. As if that's the only way we can show strength? Yet, in the first film, she's the opposite, and just as strong...so maybe not?
Don't get me wrong, I tend to identify more with and like the tough as nails macho heroine. But I also loved Wonder Woman. I think we need and should demand both.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-26 01:58 pm (UTC)I don't think I can explain why I take those seemingly inconsistent positions. I mean, sure I can argue that there's more value in Chinatown than in Nugent's "music", or that Chinatown got made before the rape. But there are plenty of cases where those kinds of rationales don't help much. I guess that for the most part I'm willing to separate art from the artist but it's always a judgment call for me and I can't really claim strict principle or logic.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-26 02:27 pm (UTC)OTOH, I think the mediums of music and film are very different. For one thing, films tend to be more collaborative in nature. Ted Nugent had mostly a solo career and wasn't all that collaborative. (I despise him as well, and have never liked his music nor listen to it. I had to look him up though, because I have a tendency to confuse him with some of the band leaders of Led Zepplin. I have no idea why.)
Chinatown - had an excellent screenplay, plus great casting. Roman Polanski wasn't the sole creator. He was just one of many cogs in the wheel. I've seen a lot of Polanski films, and ...yes, what came out about him later does color some of the films. (There is an undercurrent of sexism and sexual violence to all his films that is disturbing if you know what he was up to during them. Polanski also is a bit of a mess -- he was married to Sharon Tate, who was brutally killed by Charles Manson, resulting in a very gory take on Macbeth.) Chinatown is actually the least disturbing. With The Tenant and Revulsion being the most disturbing, and Rosemary's Baby falling somewhere in between.
I mean...the same issue arises with Woody Allen. And, with writers? TS Eliot (anti-semite), Virigina Woolf (racist) Orson Scott Card (homophobic) and of course Bill Cosby, who I can't watch now.
I think, for me at least, it depends. Ted Nugent sort of proclaims his agenda and nasty worldview at every opportunity. While people like Joss Whedon, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski tend to keep it more hidden. It's not their politics. And while it may affect their art, it doesn't appear to be the main thrust or message behind it.
Music, unlike film or television or even a fictional novel, I think often can be a bit more tainted by that perspective?
I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-26 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-26 10:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-26 11:11 pm (UTC)So I'm still a Buffy fan, but that's about it.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 12:57 am (UTC)Whedon is about my age, and had a similar educational background in film and literature to mine. So I found him interesting for those reasons. But, I can't really say I was a fan of anything but Buffy. I do own Firefly, Angel, and Buffy on DVD. But I've only really re-watched or seriously written about Buffy.
I am not fannish about people, more stories, characters, and art. I never really understood the autograph seekers.
I think the Buffy series has a lot going for it, and this news doesn't really affect my view of it all that much. Mainly because it was collaborative, and Whedon didn't really run the show by himself. The network did interfere. And his writers had a definitive voice. As did the actors in how they chose to portray the characters, not to mention the directors.
Dollhouse and Firefly felt a bit darker...and more Whedon's. Which may be why I didn't like them as well. As did the S8 comics...which, I noticed had some disturbing undercurrents. Angel was basically Tim Minear, David Greenwalt, and Jeff Bell's baby, Whedon really wasn't that involved except for the horrid Cordelia arc that did not work, and Fred's arc, which didn't quite work either.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 01:02 am (UTC)I'm not big on hero worship. I like to judge each accomplishment on its own. And I think that even bad people can create great art. Just don't ask me to justify my choices. :)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 03:05 am (UTC)Bill Cosby created some good shows, I liked The Cosby Kids, and The Cosby Show, and I SPY. Also some of his stand-up.
And so did Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.
Do I like the men who created them? No. I don't know them. I liked some of their work. Not all of it.
And Shakespeare was far from perfect or noble. He was actually a bit of an ass, history did not smile on him. And not all of his plays work for me. Some do. Some don't.
Same deal with Mel Gibson -- I liked some of his films quite a bit and still do. I don't need to like him.
I'm not big on hero worship. I like to judge each accomplishment on its own. And I think that even bad people can create great art. Just don't ask me to justify my choices. :)
Feel the same. I don't really understand hero worship. Or worship period. I don't like to worship people or things.
And I don't think we should have to justify what we love.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 08:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 01:16 pm (UTC)There's a big difference between paying $250 to see an artist perform, and paying $30 for a Buffy DVD. Particularly since the proceeds go to Fox, who owns the copyright, not Whedon. (Whedon doesn't own any of his television properties, and if he collects anything from them it's minimal. He sold the rights to Buffy to someone else in the 1990s.) Same deal with Roman Polanski. Watching and enjoying Chinatown on cable isn't benefiting Polanski at all. But paying $300 concert tickets to see say Ted Nugent, does benefit Ted Nugent.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 12:33 am (UTC)It's a particularly fun time for all when a married couple in the same company has one spouse cheating with someone else in the workplace.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 01:00 am (UTC)People aren't perfect. I always feel a little sorry for the people who end up at the center of this sort of drama. I mean how humiliating...also, not only do you lose your spouse but also your job and your reputation. Ouch.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 01:19 pm (UTC)Although that's usually how the spouse finds out. Which is why the younger woman usually gets a promotion or a hefty severance package.