(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Work is making me crazy again. So crazy, I bought wine and chips and vodka on the way home. And am off to watch General Hospital and Mad Men. Speaking of which, co-worker who despises Mad Men but can't stop watching it, sent me the following links:

Mad Men Links:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/hands_off_sally_7BVSqUqC1kRBCufb7TrjSI

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/is_peggy_off_mad_men_for_good_RIdZ17vR3RzEvNbsAMmPZP

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/stergling_reputation_oluT1sjmbzQQEuPv7DsZAL

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/marvel_ous_qfNQXAHTOZvvo0WacyYW8O

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/john_slattery_on_jon_hamm_he_gets_FbbGHplcyqlLf8OLi3NVfI

Warning all of them contain spoilers, I accidentally got spoiled on Sunday night's episode reading the second link.

2. Mark Watches made it to Intervention and I didn't realize Disharmony and Intervention aired at the same time.

It's notable that Whedon's series are solidly in a specific pov. Disharmony is in Angel's pov and Angel can't for one second believe that vampires are redeemable, that a vampire can change, that vampires can love, feel loyalty, or care. He is in perpetual denial. And therefore makes sweeping generalizations. Angel is all about rules and order, he loves rules. Thrives on them. Which in Orpheus, Angelus makes fun of, as does Spike, Darla, and Dru at different points. Because, whoops, Angel, no, everything you did...was you. The devil didn't make you do it.

What Cordy and Angel conveniently forget, is that Harmony was always duplicitous - when it came to fitting in or being popular. She stab her best bud in the back just to be popular. Why Cordy forgot this, I don't know - she knew Harmony and was the brunt of Harm's two-faced behavior on more than one occasion, not the brightest bulb on the planet, Cordy. (Sigh, I've been friends with a few Harmony's in my life time. You meet a woman like that? Don't walk, RUN in the opposite direction. Or just stake them, quicker, and far more satisfying actually (I'm joking).) Although to be fair, Cordy was somewhat the same way. You couldn't trust her as a human. She was always two-faced. Becoming a vampire if anything just heightened that. The vampire twists the human traits.

That made Angel interesting to me. Albeit frustrating as well. Characters who are in perpetual denile can be incredibly frustrating to watch. They never change.

Comments

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I find that first article about Sally Draper seriously disturbing. I really see no problem with depicting a child growing up and making fairly normal sexual experiences, accidentally happening upon grown ups having sex, masturbating, getting their period? I had all of that around 11 and many girls do. What's wrong with incorporating it into the story? The scenes never feel exploitive of the actress ( who's parents and coworkers hopefully explain that stuff properly to her instead of being irrationally prude about it). Sally is growing up into a world that demeans women through their sexuality, Mad Men has never been shugarcoating sexism. Actually that it holds full on the sexism is what makes it a feminist show, imho.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee, preaching to the choir here. I agree.

Part of the reason for my recent binge/obsession with romance novels - is the gender politics. No where is it more evident than there. And how the women writers view it, how ingrained the sexism is. How they struggle with male domination and male brutality. It's in some bizarre way, as in Mad Men, far more realistically conveyed in the romance novels, than it is in tales like Buffy or GWDT or La Femme Nikita.

I don't understand why our society is afraid of sex and nudity but embraces violence, killing, torture and fighting wholeheartedly. The reviews on Good Reads regarding romance novels are enlightening...the women can't deal with graphic sex scenes...but a bloody murder mystery?
No problem.

And sex has been used to demean and debase and exploit...so often.
Which is the reason why people struggle with it.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

It's in some bizarre way, as in Mad Men, far more realistically conveyed in the romance novels, than it is in tales like Buffy or GWDT or La Femme Nikita.

I think those, oppressed hero picks up the fight for his people stories that men like so much, simply do not work in regard to feminism. This is a movement that can never ever really do an us/them split. Men and women always go together and every change has to come from both sides. Also the means of oppression are very different and shows like Buffy or Nikita rarely show what internalized sexism does to a psyche.

Sometimes these superhero have an undertunes of "Oh, if only women were all as strong and brave as Buffy then equality would be a peace of cake. No idea why it's not working..."
Mad Men shows why it is not working. How Joan goes up with prostitution, while Peggy clashes with the glass ceiling. And how Sally's coming of age welcomes her into the world of Megan and Betty.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

Sometimes these superhero have an undertunes of "Oh, if only women were all as strong and brave as Buffy then equality would be a peace of cake. No idea why it's not working..."

A while ago, a friend of mine told me that they disliked how Lisbeth Salander was portrayed in GWDT and that entire trope. When I asked why,
she said because men turn the woman into them, taking away from her what makes us women. Which I kept tossing about in my head, because when I first heard it...I felt myself bristle and get angry, defensive. But I began to think it over...and she has a point.

In the romance novels, women are not physically stronger than the men.
We aren't. With few exceptions. I learned that lesson as a child fighting with my brother - realizing I could win a physical fight with him. But I could win a verbal battle. There were other ways to fight.
Physical strength or power isn't the only type of power.

But in the stories like Girl with the Dragon or Buffy or the superhero tales many men tell...it appears that it is. The brave, physically strong hero who fights for the oppressed. The warrior woman, the amazon.

In reality, we fight in other more subtle ways.

In another conversation with a male coworker (who loves Breaking Bad and hates Mad Men, but can't stop watching it - he's the one I got the links from) - he said that Peggy was a piranha, she might as well get a sex-change operation and become a man. (this bothered me, but I've gotten past it...) Peggy has had to exude a physical strength, a ballsy aggression to obtain power. Very realistic in the work place.
I've seen it over and over again. And I too, have had to do it.

Joan Harris, my male co-worker liked better (although he did not see this season yet, so that may change). But ...Joan breaks through the glass ceiling not with talent but with sex - or providing sex to a client, she sells her body not her brains, while Peggy can't break through the glass ceiling with her brains, and never will be able to with her body (she's not attractive to most men), so is forced to jump ship and hope she can find that success somewhere else.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

In reality, we fight in other more subtle ways.


I'm always torn up about this stuff because I massively reject the female stereotype and do think it is one of our biggest problems as a society. Even with stuff like physical strength the social construct (started by telling girls they are weaker and by for centuries not feeding them enough, so we would as a gender evolve to need less energy) is much much stronger than the actual reality. So in a way I like these physical female heroes a lot (adored Starbuck and her fistfights for example).

But you are right, in that they are not very realistic. On every Calamity Jane come 10 women who fought in other ways and there's certainly power in their fight too.

he said that Peggy was a piranha, she might as well get a sex-change operation and become a man.

Hah! That's the thing to a t. For sexist men to feel threatened (particularly those who are not actually physically strong), a women just needs to actually want to get on in the world.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm always torn up about this stuff because I massively reject the female stereotype and do think it is one of our biggest problems as a society. Even with stuff like physical strength the social construct (started by telling girls they are weaker and by for centuries not feeding them enough, so we would as a gender evolve to need less energy) is much much stronger than the actual reality. So in a way I like these physical female heroes a lot (adored Starbuck and her fistfights for example).

True. We are unfortunately a very dualistic society. It's either/or not both. People for some reason or other feel this need to categorize things as either black or white, or male or female, or yin or yang.
Which is a major flaw in our thinking by the way. Because nature is not one thing or another, it can't be categorized that neatly or precisely. The extremist view that you either have an unregulated free market society promoting individualistic/selfish needs or an overly regulated, collective society where the individual spirit is pressed down and silenced to fit the needs of the collective - is impractical, silly, and unrealistic. But people have troubles seeing the gray areas in between.

I do not fit the female category well. That doesn't mean I'm not heterosexual (by that I mean that people often assume someone is homosexual or a lesbian if they are female with male traits or male with female traits more obvious, they also assume if you are single and not obviously dating - which is not true of course of homosexuals, who date a lot, and many male homosexuals are very masculain and macho, while many female lesbians are extremely feminine and girly, you really can't make stereotypes about this - but people do) and feminine, I am. But I don't get on well with small children, no green thumb, not a nuturer or care-giver. And I'm big - almost 6 foot, big boned, not quite as big as Brienne on GoT but...
However, I find spectator sports boring. I don't fit into a category.
And neither does my brother - who hates the romanticized macho hero trope seen in Cormac McCarthy and Hemingway's novels. He's into clothes, gardening, very good with small children, and very much the care-giver. He's more like my mom, while I take after my Dad - uncomfortable with small children, hates to garden, and not into clothes except to look nice and fit in. But I have been painting my nails purple lately, and I like earrings and pretty things.

Our society struggles with that - they want things to be black and white, not gray or purple. It's easier. It's the flaw in our thinking, it's why we are stuck. We have move past it. My favorite season of Buffy - S5 and S6 really plays with the notion of duality and how it's not that clear cut. I also liked BSG - because it played with that idea as well - Starbuck and Athena and Rosylnn as well as Apollo, were good examples of that.

For sexist men to feel threatened (particularly those who are not actually physically strong), a women just needs to actually want to get on in the world

Yep. He fits the category - single, not physically strong, frustrated, and older...who has watched strong women rise above him. Co=worker is actually a nice guy, and his response unfortunately is typical, particularly of male dominated workplaces.