Is it such a bad thing? by AngusThermopyle

Quote:
Originally posted by Willowy:
[Above all, do not bash The Joss here.

I really do love the show, and would love to see more; however, the question is valid. Discussion forum, you see?

How sad is it when people answer messageboards using the vernacular of a TV show? Would've swore at you in Mandarin, but I don't speak it, unfortunately.

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 2:35 AM

PSYCHICRIVER

I love Buffy. But youve got a good point.

I mean what if Joss had chosen to blow up Serenity at the end of Season 3?

PsychicRiver

"Two by two, hands of blue."

"We can take care of each other. I'll knit!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 6:02 AM

BADGERSHAT

Keep in mind (yes, I'm saying that again), keep in mind thatJoss was NOT the ONLY driving force behind Buffy in later seasons. He was the executive producer, but had Angel and Firefly at the same time, plus other various projects like Fray and such. Other personages had more or less taken over the wheel for the last part of Buffy, and yes, it DID get a little heavy handed at times, and Buffy herself got a bit over the top in the speechifying department.

But Joss himself had a lot less to do with Buffy in the later seasons than most people realize--much like Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek, other people were in charge.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
--Don't bother trying to predict, figure out, second guess, criticize, or suggest anything that comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, for you shall usually be wrong, and shall find out the Truth and Purpose in due time.
(This is the Truth of Whedoning)

"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Keep in mind (yes, I'm saying that again), keep in mind thatJoss was NOT the ONLY driving force behind Buffy in later seasons. He was the executive producer, but had Angel and Firefly at the same time, plus other various projects like Fray and such. Other personages had more or less taken over the wheel for the last part of Buffy, and yes, it DID get a little heavy handed at times, and Buffy herself got a bit over the top in the speechifying department.

But Joss himself had a lot less to do with Buffy in the later seasons than most people realize--much like Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek, other people were in charge.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
--Don't bother trying to predict, figure out, second guess, criticize, or suggest anything that comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, for you shall usually be wrong, and shall find out the Truth and Purpose in due time.
(This is the Truth of Whedoning)

"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

There is another point I'd like to make re the latter Buffy series. It started off with good against evil and ended up with evil fighting evil. You could make the "fight fire with fire" argument, but then you just get a bloody great big fire. It's a shame he didn't keep a tighter rein on it; but having said that, he wouldn't've let it happen if he wasn't satisfied, so he must've felt the same way. Either that or he didn't care so much with having his other projects.

I haven't seen the final series of Angel yet - the previous have been excellent, especially 2 - but friends who have said they were disappointed. I'm waiting for my girlfriend to get the DVDs when they come out next month (region 2).

The sleeper must awaken. Duke Leto Atriedes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:41 AM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by AngusThermopyle:
I haven't seen the final series of Angel yet - the previous have been excellent, especially 2 - but friends who have said they were disappointed. I'm waiting for my girlfriend to get the DVDs when they come out next month (region 2).

In my opinion, seasons 1 to 3 are great, 4 is the letdown, and 5 is something of a last resurgence before the lights go out :) Even if you end up not liking the majority of it, there are still a few essential episodes that need to be seen.

And I agree about the slide of Buffy, perhaps not so much to do with 'feminist propaganda' but just a lack of real direction or subtlety.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 9:02 AM

ZEEK

Actually I think you make a very good point. Buffy and even Angel to some extent took a nose dive as the series continued on. This is to be expected with any series really. There's only so far a group of characters can go before the stories become forced. Maybe the same would be true with Firefly.

Though even with a pretty good nose dive Firefly would still be one of if not the best show on tv today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 10:56 AM

NICOLACLARKE

To the over-protective Joss fans: lighten up! :smiles: Since when has FFF.net required every poster to blindly preach the Gospel of Whedon? Joss is a big boy and doesn't need you to jump all over anyone who offers a constructive (if strongly-worded) criticism. I'm sure even Jossage himself would admit that not everything he touches turns to gold. Dissenting opinions, where they're not simply the work of trolls, are natural and useful. This forum would be very dull if no-one ever challenged us...

To AngusThermopyle: I agree with you on Buffy - I loathed season 6 so much I couldn't even bring myself to watch 7. Not so much because of 'feminist propaganda', however - unless by that you mean its shamefully sidelining of all the male characters bar Spike (who himself only got screentime when he lost his shirt, it seemed). More the humourless dirge part.

*ducks flames*

Couldn't say re. Angel - have only seen 1-3 thus far, and adored it for the most part.

All that said/written, it seems to me that being grateful Firefly got canned just in case its quality dipped is unfounded pessimism at its silliest. (So I'm going to counter it with a desperately silly analogy...) It's a bit like being glad you've had your legs amputated, because at least now you can't cross any roads and perhaps get hit by a car.

More seriously, wouldn't you have liked to see what happened, rather than second-guessing the show's development based on what has gone before?

BTW... good choice of name, particularly given your apparent propensity for stirring.

/ pure intentions, juxtaposed /

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 11:49 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by PsychicRiver:
I love Buffy. But youve got a good point.
I mean what if Joss had chosen to blow up Serenity at the end of Season 3?

What, just after Mal's son had been killed by those Klingon bastards?

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 12:20 PM

ZOID

AngusThermopyle wrote:

Quote:
I really do love the show, and would love to see more; however, the question is valid. Discussion forum, you see?

How sad is it when people answer messageboards using the vernacular of a TV show? Would've swore at you in Mandarin, but I don't speak it, unfortunately.

Okay. I'm gonna take things a little further, and then hopefully draw them back in again, into a tidy little bundle.

I watched a couple of single episodes of BtVS and Angel. I never liked them. SMG gives me a rash, as does James Marsters. My teenage daughter loves these shows, which is how I wound up watching them at all. They never appealed to me. Maybe it's something to do with the prosthetics or all the farcical machinations with daylight and stakes, and evil characters becoming the good guys, etc.

When Firefly first hit the small screen on Friday nights at 7 PM in my locality, I thought, 'Cool. Something to watch before Farscape', which frankly had lost its appeal when Zhaan left. Virgina Hey was the only reason I originally watched that series, due to a lasting crush on her since "The Road Warrior". Farscape started getting wackier and she left, and I lost a lot of my interest in the show, which I had come to fully enjoy.

Then I catch the first episode of Firefly and, bam! I am hooked. And I'll be honest, I gave the show a look because of Morena Baccarin. But by the end of the first episode I was hooked because of the dialog and Wash and Zoe's relationship. It was and continues to be one of the best TV depictions ever of the give-and-take of married life. On top of that, my wife's name is Kayley. I didn't stand a chance...

I watched every episode, taking care to check my listings, so I wouldn't miss an episode due to displacement by MLB playoffs. When F*x showed the 2-hour episode, I was in hog heaven. This show was so great, and the '2-hour event' only proved it, and F*x's dedication to the show. Yippee!

Next week, there was no episode, and none the week after; but, it was NFL playoff season by then, and I just figured F*x didn't have room for it right then: It'd be back.

As the weeks drug on into a month, I started going into withdrawal, and went to the 'Net looking to see what was up, when the next episode was going to air. That was when I found out F*x had cancelled it. I was literally devastated. Forlorn. How could a merciful God allow something of such beauty to be so callously taken from me? (Yeah, it was childish, but I couldn't help feeling betrayed.)

About three months after its cancellation, I started hanging out on alt.tv.firefly and talking to others who felt the same way. It was at that point that I learned Joss Whedon was the show's creator, and that he had created BtVS and Angel. I downloaded all the eps -- including ones never shown in the U.S. -- and if anything I felt worse, more angry.

Then somebody turned me on to FFFn and I've been here ever since. Like group therapy...

Would I have eventually soured on the show? Who can say? I frankly have never been keen on River being psychic. It smacks too much of Buffyverse to me. Especially since I think her 'insight' could be explained much more satisfyingly by conventional means. Remember "Rain Man"? Raymond takes one glance at the spilled matches and can tell you how many there are; he can remember all the cards that have been dealt at blackjack. Is he psychic? No. He just perceives the world differently than other humans. In one scene, it is explained that people think autism means being cut off from reality; but, it is further explained, in fact he senses more of the world's stimuli than we do, not less. When Simon diagnoses River's condition, he says something similar: She senses too much, "she can't not".

Apparently, it's set in stone. River's psychic. I don't like it but, hey, I've learned enough about Joss' talents to believe the storytelling will still be compelling.

Which brings me to my main point: I didn't like Joss' previous works; but I believe in artists maturing in their work. I didn't like BtVS or Angel; but I do like Firefly. Joss -- for my tastes -- has gotten better at what he does. It seems so natural to say: Artist gets older, artist gets wiser, artist creates better art. But many think of JW as an unchanging entity: he's the same as an artist today as when he created Buffy, or Woody, or the human-alien hybrid.

Nothing, no one, stays the same. Change is the only constant in Life. Ponder this. Then, think on it some more, because it applies to all human beings, including you and me.

Which brings us, at long last, to your thoughts I quoted above. As a preamble, let me say, "Welcome to the board." Seriously. Stick around, post some invective, occasionally say complimentary things, and play with the other hominids over in the treehouse. It's a good family. They forgive. They encourage. They'll befriend you, if you let them.

Next I'll say, "Have a little respect for those whose opinions differ from yours." Just because you're a lone wolf, an independent thinker, doesn't give you the right to belittle those who enjoy fitting in, by calling them sheep.

I'm an independent thinker, too. Who knows? Maybe in 30 years or so, you'll even come to appreciate my perspective. But just because I'm an 'independent thinker' doesn't make me better than other folk. And it doesn't make you better either. We here at FFFn are an eclectic bunch of kids and oldsters, liberals and conservatives, men and women. ...And everything in between those labels. If you put someone beneath you, you turn off the intellectual, social and emotional growth you might otherwise get -- and supposedly want -- out of the experience.

And of course, if you play wolf by calling the other gentle souls on this board 'sheep', you'll have to deal with me: your cousin and nemesis, the German Shepherd Dog...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 2:13 PM

MALICIOUS

Zoid, you don't think you're better than EVERYone! Just the folks you're better than! Sheesh. Why do I gotta keep 'splainin' this?

Mal-licious

Co-Holder of the Red Bell from Hell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NicolaClarke:
To the over-protective Joss fans: lighten up! :smiles: Since when has FFF.net required every poster to blindly preach the Gospel of Whedon? Joss is a big boy and doesn't need you to jump all over anyone who offers a constructive (if strongly-worded) criticism. I'm sure even Jossage himself would admit that not everything he touches turns to gold. Dissenting opinions, where they're not simply the work of trolls, are natural and useful. This forum would be very dull if no-one ever challenged us...

To AngusThermopyle: I agree with you on Buffy - I loathed season 6 so much I couldn't even bring myself to watch 7. Not so much because of 'feminist propaganda', however - unless by that you mean its shamefully sidelining of all the male characters bar Spike (who himself only got screentime when he lost his shirt, it seemed). More the humourless dirge part.

*ducks flames*

Couldn't say re. Angel - have only seen 1-3 thus far, and adored it for the most part.

All that said/written, it seems to me that being grateful Firefly got canned just in case its quality dipped is unfounded pessimism at its silliest. (So I'm going to counter it with a desperately silly analogy...) It's a bit like being glad you've had your legs amputated, because at least now you can't cross any roads and perhaps get hit by a car. More seriously, wouldn't you have liked to see what happened, rather than second-guessing the show's development based on what has gone before?

BTW... good choice of name, particularly given your apparent propensity for stirring.

/ pure intentions, juxtaposed /

Hi Nicola,

Firstly, thanks for your comments, which were interesting. I have to say that you were wise not to watch Buffy 7 as it far more annoying than 6. Series 7 was where the feminist line really kicked in bigtime. I won't say more than that as you may watch it someday and don't want to do a spoiler.

Secondly, on Firefly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. I'd love to see more. It's the best sci-fi show in years, and with crap like Enterprise about it really does come into sharp relief with it's excellent dialogue, great plots and humour.

I wouldn't have killed to see what happens lol, but I'd love to know what Book's background really is ("He aint no shepherd"), what happens with River and the Blue Sun Corp, I'd also like to see how Joss deals with the fine balance of Mal and Inara's relationship (which would be difficult to carry the momentum without becoming sadistic).

Thirdly, I didn't start this thread to stir, merely wondered what other people thought about it. Couldn't find out if I didn't ask.

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
AngusThermopyle wrote:
Quote:
I really do love the show, and would love to see more; however, the question is valid. Discussion forum, you see?

How sad is it when people answer messageboards using the vernacular of a TV show? Would've swore at you in Mandarin, but I don't speak it, unfortunately.

Okay. I'm gonna take things a little further, and then hopefully draw them back in again, into a tidy little bundle.

I watched a couple of single episodes of BtVS and Angel. I never liked them. SMG gives me a rash, as does James Marsters. My teenage daughter loves these shows, which is how I wound up watching them at all. They never appealed to me. Maybe it's something to do with the prosthetics or all the farcical machinations with daylight and stakes, and evil characters becoming the good guys, etc.

When Firefly first hit the small screen on Friday nights at 7 PM in my locality, I thought, 'Cool. Something to watch before Farscape', which frankly had lost its appeal when Zhaan left. Virgina Hey was the only reason I originally watched that series, due to a lasting crush on her since "The Road Warrior". Farscape started getting wackier and she left, and I lost a lot of my interest in the show, which I had come to fully enjoy.

Then I catch the first episode of Firefly and, bam! I am hooked. And I'll be honest, I gave the show a look because of Morena Baccarin. But by the end of the first episode I was hooked because of the dialog and Wash and Zoe's relationship. It was and continues to be one of the best TV depictions ever of the give-and-take of married life. On top of that, my wife's name is Kayley. I didn't stand a chance...

I watched every episode, taking care to check my listings, so I wouldn't miss an episode due to displacement by MLB playoffs. When F*x showed the 2-hour episode, I was in hog heaven. This show was so great, and the '2-hour event' only proved it, and F*x's dedication to the show. Yippee!

Next week, there was no episode, and none the week after; but, it was NFL playoff season by then, and I just figured F*x didn't have room for it right then: It'd be back.

As the weeks drug on into a month, I started going into withdrawal, and went to the 'Net looking to see what was up, when the next episode was going to air. That was when I found out F*x had cancelled it. I was literally devastated. Forlorn. How could a merciful God allow something of such beauty to be so callously taken from me? (Yeah, it was childish, but I couldn't help feeling betrayed.)

About three months after its cancellation, I started hanging out on alt.tv.firefly and talking to others who felt the same way. It was at that point that I learned Joss Whedon was the show's creator, and that he had created BtVS and Angel. I downloaded all the eps -- including ones never shown in the U.S. -- and if anything I felt worse, more angry.

Then somebody turned me on to FFFn and I've been here ever since. Like group therapy...

Would I have eventually soured on the show? Who can say? I frankly have never been keen on River being psychic. It smacks too much of Buffyverse to me. Especially since I think her 'insight' could be explained much more satisfyingly by conventional means. Remember "Rain Man"? Raymond takes one glance at the spilled matches and can tell you how many there are; he can remember all the cards that have been dealt at blackjack. Is he psychic? No. He just perceives the world differently than other humans. In one scene, it is explained that people think autism means being cut off from reality; but, it is further explained, in fact he senses more of the world's stimuli than we do, not less. When Simon diagnoses River's condition, he says something similar: She senses too much, "she can't not".

Apparently, it's set in stone. River's psychic. I don't like it but, hey, I've learned enough about Joss' talents to believe the storytelling will still be compelling.

Which brings me to my main point: I didn't like Joss' previous works; but I believe in artists maturing in their work. I didn't like BtVS or Angel; but I do like Firefly. Joss -- for my tastes -- has gotten better at what he does. It seems so natural to say: Artist gets older, artist gets wiser, artist creates better art. But many think of JW as an unchanging entity: he's the same as an artist today as when he created Buffy, or Woody, or the human-alien hybrid.

Nothing, no one, stays the same. Change is the only constant in Life. Ponder this. Then, think on it some more, because it applies to all human beings, including you and me.

Which brings us, at long last, to your thoughts I quoted above. As a preamble, let me say, "Welcome to the board." Seriously. Stick around, post some invective, occasionally say complimentary things, and play with the other hominids over in the treehouse. It's a good family. They forgive. They encourage. They'll befriend you, if you let them.

Next I'll say, "Have a little respect for those whose opinions differ from yours." Just because you're a lone wolf, an independent thinker, doesn't give you the right to belittle those who enjoy fitting in, by calling them sheep.

I'm an independent thinker, too. Who knows? Maybe in 30 years or so, you'll even come to appreciate my perspective. But just because I'm an 'independent thinker' doesn't make me better than other folk. And it doesn't make you better either. We here at FFFn are an eclectic bunch of kids and oldsters, liberals and conservatives, men and women. ...And everything in between those labels. If you put someone beneath you, you turn off the intellectual, social and emotional growth you might otherwise get -- and supposedly want -- out of the experience.

And of course, if you play wolf by calling the other gentle souls on this board 'sheep', you'll have to deal with me: your cousin and nemesis, the German Shepherd Dog...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Why 30 years, Zoid? I agreed with just about everything you said with a vengeance. I seem to have gotten this rep as not liking FF or it's fans. That's just not the case. I just wanted to understand some of the motivations behind some of the more fanatical fans... Anyway.

Totally agree with you about River. I think a savant arc would've been far preferable; but having said that, who knows the real power of the mind and with the invassive proceedures she'd endured, maybe it could unlock something in an organ that's barely used. In many cases less than that lol.

Yep, Farscape got totally weird and up it's own exhaust vent. Plus, I was never a Jim H fan, always looked a big Muppetish to me.

I had a similar experience with Lexx. It started out as completely different from any Sci-Fi series I'd seen before. Then it got totally predictable: Stan and Zev (Xev) get horny, find planet with horny people, get into trouble, saved by Kai.

You get a lot of drugged weeks, Zoid? They merely drew out for me; but if you needed medication to get through a trying time, who am I to judge?

As to politics, I'm somewhere in the middle, depending on the issue. On some things I swing to the right, on others I move to the left. I'm a bloody good dancer too!

All the best, mate.

Andrew (Angus)

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 3:48 AM

Wow, so much Buffy bashing. Angus, I'm just curious. Do you prefer stories that slide women to the sidelines and let the men do all the fighting? Flip it around and imagine that all the main characters were men and the women were the sidekicks. Nobody would even notice. The feminism is what made that show such an unusual thing when it came out, and as a woman, I was thrilled to see a female hero who didn't have to be an angry butch lesbian to get the job done.

Heroes don't always wear white hats, and villains aren't evil for no reason. Buffy explored this in a way few shows or even movies have ever dared. But perhaps it's a difference in perspective. Some people like their stories black and white. I love it when I'm not sure who the bad guy is. Buffy, and especially Angel, excelled in that kind of thinking.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 4:29 AM

NKYJAY

I agree, although I also agree that series 7 of BtVS and 4 of Angel were not as good as the earlier ones. They lacked the wicked ability to poke fun at themselves and the ironies and hypocrasies of the universe that so attracted me in the beginning. The better episodes explore the big questions in the interactions between characters and the situations they find themselves in. I figure preaching happens when the writers are unable to get their point across in any other way. It's always better when they show rather than tell, because that allows the audience to feel as though they are forming their own opinion, even if they're having their hand held while doing it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Wow, so much Buffy bashing. Angus, I'm just curious. Do you prefer stories that slide women to the sidelines and let the men do all the fighting? Flip it around and imagine that all the main characters were men and the women were the sidekicks. Nobody would even notice. The feminism is what made that show such an unusual thing when it came out, and as a woman, I was thrilled to see a female hero who didn't have to be an angry butch lesbian to get the job done.

Heroes don't always wear white hats, and villains aren't evil for no reason. Buffy explored this in a way few shows or even movies have ever dared. But perhaps it's a difference in perspective. Some people like their stories black and white. I love it when I'm not sure who the bad guy is. Buffy, and especially Angel, excelled in that kind of thinking.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

No, Maugwai, not a bit of it. My girlfriend and I were just having a very similar discussion about the whole feminist issues that seem to come up on TV and in the other media formats that, strangely, never come up as conflicts in our real daily lives. We were postulating about Mal and Inara and how that could pan out. Obviously if the did get together, which they obviously both want, Mal would of course want not wish Inara to continue with her current career. Being a TV show and fearing to be different (i.e. continuing the p.c. tradition, Inara would probably have a problem with that; but why? If you love someone you find compromises and it isn't a great conflict. I'm not only talking about the woman compromising either. You do what it takes to have the best chance of being together. Being together should become the only caviat. Don't you think?

I know of no-one who thought that the feminism issue interesting or appealing. In fact, the all seem to have found it pretty annoying. And they are 90% women. Feminism isn't really real life, but because people are so influenced by the media, they think it is.

I'd go so far as to say, feminism has done a lot of harm to society, especially in families. I'm all for women being respected and honoured. I'm not a feminist, but that doesn't really mean anything. I support my girlfriend however I can - I'm talking emotionally here, not financial. She is my equal.

And, Buffy did have to have a lesbian in it, she just wasn't butch lol. She was kind of willowy really. That whole lesbian, wicca, godess thing was pretty grating! Shame coz Willow was one of my favourite characters. I liked her ironic, intelligent, nerdy charm.

Hey, who thinks that Wash, is Xander?

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:54 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
SMG gives me a rash, as does James Marsters.

Is this the new poster line for the STD campaign?

Got milk? Oh for the ability to photoshop....

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AngusThermopyle:
I know of no-one who thought that the feminism issue interesting or appealing. In fact, the all seem to have found it pretty annoying. And they are 90% women. Feminism isn't really real life, but because people are so influenced by the media, they think it is.

I'd go so far as to say, feminism has done a lot of harm to society, especially in families. I'm all for women being respected and honoured. I'm not a feminist, but that doesn't really mean anything. I support my girlfriend however I can - I'm talking emotionally here, not financial. She is my equal.

I love this random, made-up statistic you've got there. 90% of what? Your girlfriend, your mom and your sister?

When the Taliban was in power, women who were raped were stoned to death for committing adultery.

In Thailand, as soon as poor girls hit puberty they are sold into sex slavery, often to Chinese husbands. Those Chinese men often exist only because their parents aborted their sisters, since they are only allowed to have one child and girls are undesirable.

In Nigeria, women are castrated to prevent them from enjoying sex, and therefore making adultery unlikely.

And in Europe, America, and every other place on earth, Wives and daughters are still beaten daily. In my class, the women who aren't virgins are chastized as sluts but the boys are applauded as players. And this is after great improvements all over the world. We can vote now. There is a whole world of people outside your house.

Buffy encourages girls to look at themselves as powerful figures, not to be abused or looked on as meek supporters of their male counterparts.

So now you know one person who thinks the feminist issue is interesting and appealing. It's really a shame you don't know more.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 5:59 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by AngusThermopyle:
I love Firefly. I love the whole idea of it. ...
I have only just bought the DVD set and it was my first time seeing it. T'was exceedingly good. I'd recently borrowed all my girlfriend's Buffy sets and watched all seven series, back to back....if Buffy is anything to go by - and Angel according to friends (I haven't seen series 5) - then I'd have to say I'm kind of glad it remains perfect and unspoiled...

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

I don' know. I'm a Firefly Fan not necessarily a Joss Fan. For the sake of discussion let's say you're right. They say that the third time's the charm. Judging by the quality of Heart of Gold,Trash and the script for Dead or Alive, all episodes not aired during the show's abbreeviated run, I think Firefly would have gotten better with age.

edited for formatting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 6:01 PM

DACUTE1

Feminism doesn't exist in real life? Maybe not, sexism does though. I have to agree with maugwai here. Looking outside of this society women are getting beaten, killed, raped and mamed because they are female. Maugwai talked about Nigeria, I know there are countries in Africa where they perform female genital mutilation, meaning cutting parts of the genitalia and sewing it up leaving enough room to urinate thereby making intercourse so ungodly painful that they don't look at anyone of the opposite sex. Oh, and this procedure happens before puberty. Not sure if that's what Maugwi was talking about.

Luckily most countries aren't so blantant in their sexism, but there's still many stereotypes that aren't going anywhere. I can't go to Thanksgiving dinner at my grandparent's place without some kind of suggestion that I should be in the kitchen. I went to a wedding about a year ago where the entire message was that the man was the leader/protector and the woman was the follower. I'm not kidding when I say that part of the message was literally, "you should make sure to tell her she's beautiful even when she's covered in flour, and EVEN if she's 9 months pregnant" but my favorite was "the man has a difficult job as the leader, but the women's even more difficult as she needs to be patient. If the man isn't leading as fast as you may think he should you need to wait and trust he'll do his job." This is in MN, one of the most liberal states in the nation.

Sexism exist, here and around the world.

As far as feminism in Buffy, yes it is about women being chosen to save the planet. There's a pro-women feel to it, kind of the point, but I guess you're going to have to point it to me as to how season 6 and 7 are any more feminist in nature than the rest. Now, I'm not saying that there wasn't downward turn in season 6 and 7, I was turned off by most of six (loved the musical evil Willow) but the most mortem depression drove me nuts. Season 7 got a little better, but not as good as the first 3. Personally my rating best to worse would be 2,3,1,5,7,4,6. Angel was turned off when they were exploring the "love" between Angel and Cordelia.

But going back to where this thread began (after all this ranting) what Angel and Buffy lacked as compared to Firefly is mystery. Especially in Buffy the characters were right there, you knew who they were and where they came from. Granted Joss' writing is awesome, which gave them depth but there growth came from where they were going not in where they came from. Firefly had the potential to explore so much more of the characters because we don't have so much, especially the secrets that both Book and Inara hold. The whole Blue Sun corporation, the Reavers, just about everything that was in that verse could be dealt with. I'll agree with Zoid that Joss matured as a writer for a TV show, but he also had a certain level of confidence that he didn't have with Buffy. He was able to look into the future of this show believing that he had more than a half of a season. With Buffy it was hard to believe that a TV show based on a failed movie would have any sort of longevity (who knew that it would be reversed- Buffy got 7, Firefly got a half) but with Buffy he didn't start thinking much ahead until season 3.

Anywho, just my thoughts.

Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 8:05 PM

Quote:
I love this random, made-up statistic you've got there. 90% of what? Your girlfriend, your mom and your sister?
Quote:

That was pretty cheap. Of course I meant 90% of the people I know... Did I get you so that you decided to have a go at my grammar? My girlfriend is 100% woman, thanks all the same.

Are you so naive that you think that beaten women would be allowed to watch such episodes of Buffy? You think they'd say to themselves: "Of course, I've had all those years of martial arts training. I'd forgotten about that..."

I know about those countries you mentioned. Probably a lot more than you do. In most cases you're talking about Islamic regimes that I knew were carrying out these sorts of atrocities long before it became common knowledge. I grew up in the middle east. I also know that everyday men and women are falsly accused of blasphemy for merely saying what they believe (if they aren't Muslim, or convert).

To women and children who are being abused, Buffy will have little or no effect on their lives. That job belongs to you and me. Why does everyone expect TV to educate and change things? We had the most shocking TV ad. at Christmas against drink driving. Who do you think the people this ad had the most impact on? People who didn't drink and drive, of course?

We let TV educate and entertain our kids coz we have things we'd rather be doing. History is taught by Hollywood, morals by Buffy? That would be a very bad thing. You think young girls saw Buffy in a very bad relationship with Spike or Willow get so powerful using the Occult and say: "Oh right, those are bad things"? Of course not. Girls want to be in sexual relationships with Spike, coz he's powerful and a bastard. Since Buffy, Charmed, Sabrina etc, the amount of teenage girls getting into the occult and black magic has gone through the roof. Is that a positive influence?

Yep, I know one person who thinks the feminist issue was interesting and appealing now. Probably a white, middle-classed and liberal?

This world needs people who are willing to give up their time to do something about the issues you raised.

So, you are obviously infuriated about these injustices abroad and in your own country... Yes? What are you doing about it?

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dacute1:
Feminism doesn't exist in real life? Maybe not, sexism does though. I have to agree with maugwai here. Looking outside of this society women are getting beaten, killed, raped and mamed because they are female. Maugwai talked about Nigeria, I know there are countries in Africa where they perform female genital mutilation, meaning cutting parts of the genitalia and sewing it up leaving enough room to urinate thereby making intercourse so ungodly painful that they don't look at anyone of the opposite sex. Oh, and this procedure happens before puberty. Not sure if that's what Maugwi was talking about....

Anywho, just my thoughts.

Aren't ism's so very popular? I'm sure you agree with Maugwai. Female circumcision is certainly practiced in many African and Islamist cultures. I'm sorry, making intercourse so ungodly painful? You do know what it's used for right? To stop intercourse. It doesn't so much make it painful as impossible.

I refer you to my answer to Maugwi for other issues as it's really early in the morning here.

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:27 PM

NKYJAY

I certainly didn't find the feminism annoying. I consider myself a feminist, although not one who feels a uniform is necessary in order to identify myself as one. I always enjoyed the fact that both good guys and bad guys in Buffy, Angel and Firefly were women, and women who thoroughly enjoyed being women too. I was slightly annoyed by the Wiccan stereotype lesbians in Buffy, though I felt Willow and Tara's relationship was well handled - as a relationship that happened to be between two women, with all of the usual difficulties that any relationship faces. I felt there was no particular feminist message in their relationship, although naturally the simple fact that they were lesbians equated it with feminism (which is unusual for Joss, he doesn't' usually succumb to stereotypes without pointing out that they're stereotypes first). I believe there was a stronger feminist message in Buffy's several (hetero) sexual partners and obvious enjoyment of sex, and that is again presented in the character of Inara. The truth of the matter is that women are still viewed as either virgins or whores wherever you are on the planet, and the fact that these two strong, female characters explore this social reality - Inara most pointedly - is much more feminist in its intent than Willow and Tara's relationship. (grin) Hope that doesn't put you off Firefly now, Angus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:42 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

If feminism means pro women, then count me as one.
If it means anti something, I don't really like to exclude people, so...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nkyjay:
I certainly didn't find the feminism annoying. I consider myself a feminist, although not one who feels a uniform is necessary in order to identify myself as one. I always enjoyed the fact that both good guys and bad guys in Buffy, Angel and Firefly were women, and women who thoroughly enjoyed being women too. I was slightly annoyed by the Wiccan stereotype lesbians in Buffy, though I felt Willow and Tara's relationship was well handled - as a relationship that happened to be between two women, with all of the usual difficulties that any relationship faces. I felt there was no particular feminist message in their relationship, although naturally the simple fact that they were lesbians equated it with feminism (which is unusual for Joss, he doesn't' usually succumb to stereotypes without pointing out that they're stereotypes first). I believe there was a stronger feminist message in Buffy's several (hetero) sexual partners and obvious enjoyment of sex, and that is again presented in the character of Inara. The truth of the matter is that women are still viewed as either virgins or whores wherever you are on the planet, and the fact that these two strong, female characters explore this social reality - Inara most pointedly - is much more feminist in its intent than Willow and Tara's relationship. (grin) Hope that doesn't put you off Firefly now, Angus.

Not a chance, NkyJay. I love Firefly and was a fan of BTVS and Angel. I think FF is one of the best Sci-Fi series I've ever seen.

I honour women, like them and respect them, but I'm no feminist. I like people, no matter what the sex. I don't like labels.

The thing I guess that annoyed me most about Buffy was how self-indulgent it got. It started out as a bright, funny and witty series and kind of went up its own politically correct

I thought the whole lesbian wicca thing wasn't terribly stereotypical at all. The amount of personal web sites I've seen on the net by women going on about godesses, Avalon, wicca and all that stuff is astounding. They always tend to have pretentious, self-indulgent poetry with awful symbolism too

I prefered Angel, but am waiting for my girlfriend to get the final series. I was a little concerned about the whole Cordy becoming a demon issue though.

It occurs to me that there's a certain amount of hypocracy when it comes to supernatural TV series. For example, when Willow etc, pulled Buffy out of Heaven - later she was having a conversation with a vamp, and he asked if there was any movement on the God issue. She said there wasn't. Who was in Heaven then? What is it she wears round her neck? What does she splash on vamps to burn them? It seems that God has no place in TV, only demons. I guess he just isn't cool enough in the minds of writers.

I think this may have to be my last post on this particular thread. It's gotten far too long and three or four people have missunderstood it. One has even taken it so much to heart (not sure that's the right organ though), that she's taken it upon herself to save all you delicate people and try to get me banned from fireflyfans.

Sad but true. I can still be messaged of course. I'm just gonna leave this thread now because it takes sooooo long to load the page. Must be about 20 feet long. However, I'm going nowhere, unless of course I'm forced to. And if that happens to be the case I won't be too broken hearted about it. It wouldn't be worth sticking around for.

To all those who joined me in entering into a discussion, I'd like to say thanks. I really enjoyed reading your comments. To those who took offence or got pissed about it. I'm sorry you feel that way, and maybe you shouldn't take a (great though it is) TV quite so seriously. Just enjoy it for what it is, great entertainment.

Regards to ALL.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:20 AM

NKYJAY

Bon voyage, Angus, pity it's under less-than-happy circumstances. May your chocolates never have unfortunate fillings.

It would be good if 'feminist' stood simply for being pro-women, but like so many other things, it's often assumed you can't be pro-something without being anti-something else. Isn't it funny how the further left or right you go, the more likely you are to end up meeting in the middle? That's something I always liked in Joss' shows, the number of times that happened. So, who's side were you on again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 3:14 AM

Wow, Angus. You said in your other thread that enjoy stirring things up. So you came here and stirred things up, and when people disagreed with you, you took it personally, made personal attacks and ran for the door.

It seems like you think television should have no meaning because the right people don't watch it or something, or maybe because people shoudn't be watching TV because they should be out saving the world? I didn't really get where you were going with that since you are posting to a fansite for a show you keep saying you like.

As for what I do to help, I belong to UNICEF. I also teach world literature, so for a living I educate teenagers in this area about the problems in the world. Each semester, I make them write letters to governments to show them how they too can have an impact on society. I also run charity drives within my classes. I am white, I am middle-class and I am liberal. I am also very well educated and well-traveled, and I'm not apologizing for that, although I am a little appalled at your predjudice against my particular socioeconomic group.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Wow, Angus. You said in your other thread that enjoy stirring things up. So you came here and stirred things up, and when people disagreed with you, you took it personally, made personal attacks and ran for the door.

It seems like you think television should have no meaning because the right people don't watch it or something, or maybe because people shoudn't be watching TV because they should be out saving the world? I didn't really get where you were going with that since you are posting to a fansite for a show you keep saying you like.

As for what I do to help, I belong to UNICEF. I also teach world literature, so for a living I educate teenagers in this area about the problems in the world. Each semester, I make them write letters to governments to show them how they too can have an impact on society. I also run charity drives within my classes. I am white, I am middle-class and I am liberal. I am also very well educated and well-traveled, and I'm not apologizing for that, although I am a little appalled at your predjudice against my particular socioeconomic group.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

I am a big fan of the show, and am really looking forward to the movie coming out - and the subsequent series, God willing and studios getting some sense.

I did say I like to start a debate, not for debate's sake, you understand? I'm not a mass debater or anything. I didn't take criticism personally, I took person attacks personally. And I've run for no door. Anyone who knows me, knows I never back down from a fight, at least if a principal's involved. I said I might have to leave, if the person who was requesting my exile got their way.

No, I don't think TV should have no meaning, quite the contrary. I just don't think it should be given too much. For me FF is pure entertainment, well written and acted etc. I think TV can have a very positive effect when used correctly; but let's face it, Mau, it's pretty rare these days with all the reality crap and makeover shows. Actually, you know what the worst show is for being preachy and pretentious? Star Trek TNG! Please don't say you're a big fan or we're off again...

Anyway, as to your socio-economic group, I wasn't being prejudiced, I was making a guess. Glad you're doing something positive to "change the World" and what could possibly be wrong with that?

As I said, I aint going anywhere just now. It was just that my other thread is soooo bloody long now, must be about 10 metres of text.

Cheers for now,

Angus.

May none of your pizzas have unfortunte toppings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 5:10 AM

It's not the television shows we take too seriously, it's the comments about "us" watching the television shows.

While I don't think proprietariness over a show is a pretty thing, one can't help being proprietary when one enjoys something to the extent that I and others have enjoyed Buffy, Angel, and Firefly. I take my own proprietariness with a grain of salt, because I realize the creativity isn't mine, just the enjoyment. With that in mind, I thoroughly enjoyed each and every episode - to a greater or marginally lesser degree - and on re-watching (yes, I have each and every season except for the last one of Angel which is out next month, and has been preordered since November), my enjoyment has risen, because I am more able to see the arcs, the subtleties, and with the commentaries and whatnot, I have more of an insight into what the creative and production teams were doing.

I love having a context in which to put things.

I don't think Firefly would've suffered in quality over more than one season, because I know that Joss Whedon and his team understand character and story development.

That being said, the original topic of this thread really didn't interest me that much - I've discussed the same thing elsewhere, and I really have no patience with nay-sayers and people who think seasons six and seven were somehow lacking in quality because "their" characters underwent changes of which they disapproved. There was a lot that was uncomfortable about those seasons, which is my theory on why people dislike them so much. As for season 4 - Adam was groovy, and the denouement was excellent.

Anyway. I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist. Someone mentioned exclusion, and that's why I define myself that way. I can't stand sexism, I don't care who's doing it. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, but if you're going to act like a prat, I will spank you, hard. I like to spank, and I have many methods for offering correction.

Andrew:

Quote:
I honour women, like them and respect them, but I'm no feminist. I like people, no matter what the sex. I don't like labels.

Labels may be uncool, even incorrect, politcally-sepaking (not that I really care), but labels are what help us sort things from each other. Like I said, I'm a humanist. So, it's fine if you don't like to label yourself, but don't think you're proving your liberality (in a philosophical, not political, sense) when you say you "honour" women. Women don't need to be honoured, Andrew, they need to be treated just like everybody else, but in the good way.

Quote:
I'd go so far as to say, feminism has done a lot of harm to society, especially in families. I'm all for women being respected and honoured. I'm not a feminist, but that doesn't really mean anything.

See, this is where you've made your mistake. How has feminism harmed society? What on Earth are you going on about? I don't agree with the stridency feminism often resorts to, but without the genesis of the movement, women would not even be able to vote. Sure, this snip is from a post previous to the one I'm responding to, but even your later post doesn't really indicate a change of heart and/or mind.

It's the "honouring" thing that will get you every time.

Quote:
Female circumcision is certainly practiced in many African and Islamist cultures. I'm sorry, making intercourse so ungodly painful? You do know what it's used for right? To stop intercourse. It doesn't so much make it painful as impossible.

More info on female genital mutilation:
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm - the most severe of which is infibulation. This consists of a clitoridectomy - removal of the clitoris so there will never be any orgasm, ever - as well as cutting off the labia, then sewing the raw edges together so that only a small opening is left for urination. Imagine the pain of menses. Many girls die of infection, since this is not generally done in a medically sterile environment.

Now, should the girl survive, and marry - and she will obviously be a virgin - when her husband has intercourse with her for the first time, he quite literally rips her open.

All of this is so the girl will not commit adultery. So the man can know he is the father of any offspring she produces.

Nice, eh?

One does need to get one's facts straight before one goes on about how stalwart one is in defense of the rights of anybody. Not that I think anyone's insincere, just slightly ignorant.

Here's another reason why Andrew's posts irritate me (and I'm glad you posted this, because it makes it all so clear):

Quote:
It occurs to me that there's a certain amount of hypocracy when it comes to supernatural TV series. For example, when Willow etc, pulled Buffy out of Heaven - later she was having a conversation with a vamp, and he asked if there was any movement on the God issue. She said there wasn't. Who was in Heaven then? What is it she wears round her neck? What does she splash on vamps to burn them? It seems that God has no place in TV, only demons. I guess he just isn't cool enough in the minds of writers.

Why do you care whether a tv show validates your concept of God, or not? There's no hypocrisy (spelling, spelling) - Buffy uses religious symbols - all kinds of religious symbols - and there is definitely a spirituality there. Just because it isn't defined to your taste, you call it "hypocrisy." I call it using the tools available.

Of course, I'm agnostic, so my argument isn't going to make a dent in anybody's belief, disgust, disgruntlement, or bemusement. I'm just sayin'.

Now, as for being banned: that's wrong. I firmly believe that there should never be any bannings, anywhere (or even the request for such, so shame on the person who ratted Andrew out). I speak as someone who's been banned (from a now long-defunct women's site, to be frank), so I actually know how you feel. I think banning someone is the first resort of someone else who doesn't know how to deal.

I've had a long, long, long, career of posting in various forums. (Almost a decade, but who's counting?) I like to think I've learned a couple of things - the first and foremost is that this is all ephemeral; the second is don't take it all so seriously. Having discussions and starting shit is all a part of it, but you have to realize that other people may be easily offended. That doesn't make the easily offended less as people, but it should be a clue that not everybody thinks as you do.

That one was really hard for me.

I may still need a few lessons....

And just because you're wrong and I'm right, doesn't make you less a person either. Just wrong, but with potential.

(edited because, well, grammatical errors)

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 7:00 AM

Andrew said:
I honour women, like them and respect them, but I'm no feminist. I like people, no matter what the sex. I don't like labels.

This is what bothers most about the whole post. Andrew doesn't like labels but is willing to use them for others (i.e. liberal, feminist, middle class.) Well here I agree. Labels suck. They are imprecise. But terms can be very useful. Looks to me like we need to clearly define some terms. Especially feminism.

Pardon my hyperbole for a moment but Andrew seems to think that feminism is a movement out of Hollywood that inspires the destruction of family values and promotes lesbianism. REEQUEEN seems to think it is a single movement that, sometimes overzealously, defends women’s rights and battles against the many heinous abuses perpetrated on women.

Guess what. Both of you are a little right. Both of you are very wrong.

Feminism is not a consistent movement. It is not a single philosophy or world view. It is not anti family. It does, in many cases, challenge the 'conservative' patriarchal structure of the 'traditional' family unit. Feminism covers a lot of ground and is a poor term for describing a show like Buffy, though I would say that Joss is a powerful proponent of many feminist ideals, including the 'feminist' idea that women are at least as capable in traditional male roles.

Furthermore; feminism is a very emotional charged word. Elements on the right (read as Rush Limbaugh) have demonized the term. Elements on the left have used it so broadly that it has become vague beyond usefulness. Maybe we should each try saying what we really mean.

Sorry for exceeding my 25 lines ;-)

-Eli

I like to attach my name so that ad hominim attacks can be more personal

This is what a feminist looks like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 8:19 AM

First of all, will folks please quit capitalizing my entire name? If you can't take the time to actually type it (and to do it correctly: ReeQueen; or simply: Ree), don't bother, just call me That Strange Person Who Disrupts the Train of Discussion (TSPWDtToD), thanks.

It's rather unnerving to have a simple pseudonym referred to (more than once) in all caps. 'Cause it's actually mean to be Ree, Queen of the Universe, but some forums have limits. Like, they won't allow spaces, capitalization, or punctuation. I dunno. Anyway, it makes me feel as though you're (the general "you," not specifically "you-you") shouting at me and my ears are senstive. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Xenocide:

Quote:
REEQUEEN seems to think it is a single movement that, sometimes overzealously, defends women’s rights and battles against the many heinous abuses perpetrated on women.

I know exactly what feminism means, thanks ever so much. I prefer being a humanist and I've explained why. What we're really discussing here is sexism, whatever Andrew or anybody else thinks to call it. Sexism bothers me, and it cuts both ways. I know the same amount of women who refer to all men as "bastards" and "sonsabitches" (I've been one of them at a few points in my life), as I know men (and women) who think I should be in the kitchen, bearing children (sorry, I'm menopausal now!), and massaging my husband's feet (he massages mine, he's a great coddler). In fact, the last person to exhibit retro-feminism in my presence was my mother, but nobody wants to hear my psychological issues right now.

The word "feminism" isn't merely the sum of it's definition (look up "connotation" and then argue definitions), it is what the word represents, and to me that is a certain stridency that focuses energy on something exclusionary, as opposed to taking care of every human being. It's like saying "Size is a feminist issue," (I quote from The Full Monty, by the way) and ignoring the fact that size issues are actually health issues for everyone.

"Heinous abuses" are, in fact, committed on everybody, no matter what gender, race, age, or religious affiliation. Sometimes, it's the religious affiliation perpetuating the abuses, but that's another thread.

In all honestly, I admire stridency if it's done well (and I like to think I do strident very well), but what truly gets up my left nostril is when that stridency serves no purpose other than to bitch about men. Wah. If a person doesn't like the way he's/she's being treated, he/she needs to do something about it, because that is what needs to be done.

I am every bit as freaked out by the fact that boys were castrated for the Vienna Boys' Choir (and I'm sure there are other, more recent examples, but I'm lazy and not looking it up right now), oh-so-long-ago, as I am by female genital mutilation. I am every bit as revolted by men being raped in jail or in interrogation centers, as I am by the same thing happening to women. Anything that can be done to a woman can be done to a man, and has been.

That is why I think feminism, and all it's connotations, is a separatist issue, and not inclusive. It is why I believe that people need to concentrate on human rights in general, wherever it is needed, rather than splintering political groups working towards their own, exclusive, goals.

And mostly why I'm gonna be Queen of the Universe when I grow up. I realize this may take a long time, which is also why I know I'm going to live forever. Eternity is a long time in which to achieve my goals.

But, that's just me, and I can understand where misapprehension can occur.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 8:52 AM

MIKEYMO

Angus, et al...

I just wanted to toss a couple of pennies in here..

1st of all - you're right about the last 2 years of Buffy. Suuuuucked. Preachy. Lame, lame metaphors (e.g. Magic = Drugs). The feminist propoganda, however, was the basis of the entire show (according to Joss) -- it just came across much better in the early years.

2nd - I think you mentioned God in one of these posts, and the idea of Good v. Evil being tossed aside for shades o' grey later in the series. May I suggest reading-->
Richard Greene and Wayne Yuen (San Jose State University), Why Can’t We Spike Spike?: Moral Themes in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
You can find it at www.slayage.tv, issue #2.

Two philosophy professors dissect the different levels of moral systems found on television, "After school special" on up. Interesting as hell, and you might enjoy.

One last thing to consider: Joss initially didn't want to make seasons 6 and 7. The show was going to finish with Buffy dying and the town getting destroyed. Give him props for the intent, even if he didn't follow through and let the program become, well...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:34 PM

Ree:

Quote:
First of all, will folks please quit capitalizing my entire name?

Sorry, but if you don't sign your post how the heck are we supposed to know how you want it formatted. The only place I see it in this thread is in the header...allcaps.
(above edited for brainfart)
Sorry if it is "mean" to be you but you can't be anyone else ;-)

About feminism.

I think it's a little high handed of you to lecture me about connotation when the point (and my pardon if I was unclear) of my previous post was that we are using the connotative (and therfore subjective) meanings of feminism in the posts instead of the denotative meanings.

So in order to practice what I preach these definitions are from Meriam Webster

feminism:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Using those definitions I would classify myself as a feminist. Now I agree that in many ways the feminist movement is exclusionary. I only ever went to one meeting of NOW and left because I didn't appreciate the hate directed at me just because I'm a man. But anyway... as a philosophy and as a critical paradigm I am in agreement with feminism.

on the other hand...

humanism:

3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
The first definition was a student of the humanities and under that definition I would consider myself a humanist.
But I imagine you meant the one above. Secular humanism. I was a secular humanist for a while. But I've come to believe that reason has done about as much service to humanity as well religion. It is just one more flawed faith... but i digress.

Some others that I found helpful.

Main Entry: con·no·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "kä-n&-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes b : something suggested by a word or thing : IMPLICATION
2 : the signification of something
3 : an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term in logic -- compare

If feminism has seperatist or sexist connotations it is because the right has successfully hijacked the term.

But by definition humanism is about reason and feminism is about equality. I'd mostly rather be a feminist.

Now that I've pulled my own train job on this thread. I apologize. Obviously the flaming cow didn't read much on the site before posting. Fen, in general, and flen, in specific, are anything but sheep. And if we like to say shiny, it is because it is clever and we like clever things.
And crap, we're having fun and we like each other.

Thanks,Ree! This is fun! And again, my apologies to the non ontologists in the group! I love this place, where else could I post 'ontology?'

-Eli

If voting mattered it would they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 4:55 PM

Eli:

Quote:
Sorry, but if you don't sign your post how the heck are we supposed to know how you want it formatted. The only place I see it in this thread is in the header...allcaps.
(above edited for brainfart)
Sorry if it is "mean" to be you but you can't be anyone else ;-)

Heh. Well, that was what the first paragraph was about....my name and how I prefer to be addressed. It was tongue-in-cheeky of me, and I do know that when you hit "reply with quote" the addressee ends up being all caps. I was just havin' a bit o' fun. No harm done. You-you.

Quote:
I think it's a little high handed of you to lecture me about connotation when the point (and my pardon if I was unclear) of my previous post was that we are using the connotative (and therfore subjective) meanings of feminism in the posts instead of the denotative meanings.

High-handed is what I do. Also, see "condescending." I do see where you're coming from, it's just that I disagree on a whole other level. Your self-labelling of "feminist" is fine and dandy, but if you do that, you must allow me my self-label of humanist. All in all, I think men identifying themselves as "feminist" is groovy, I just choose a different route.

Quote:
Using those definitions I would classify myself as a feminist. Now I agree that in many ways the feminist movement is exclusionary. I only ever went to one meeting of NOW and left because I didn't appreciate the hate directed at me just because I'm a man. But anyway... as a philosophy and as a critical paradigm I am in agreement with feminism.

And I can agree with that - you see yourself as a feminist, as you understand and define it. I don't, and I think I should be allowed that privilege. That is all. (I always get into the same argument when I make the humanist/feminist distinction, so we're not going over ground that's unfamiliar to me.)

Quote:
But by definition humanism is about reason and feminism is about equality. I'd mostly rather be a feminist.

Ah, but here's where you're mistaken - although you posted the lovely dictionary definition of "humanism," I use the term somewhat differently, as I have described. If you can define yourself as a "feminist" because of the philosophy and critical paradigm, it's only fair that I be able to define myself as "humanist" because I want to hijack the term, and make it mean something important to myself.

Humanism was originally part of the Renaissance and Enlightenment period, when artistic and scientific focus was drawn more towards human beings than esoteric subjects (medicine vs. prayer, human potential vs. waiting for the afterlife). It was and is about reason, but that doesn't mean humanism is cold and mechanical. Humanism was about what human beings could accomplish, our potential and responsibility for each other.

I feel that we should all be responsible for ourselves and each other, as human beings. I don't deny a possible spirituality, because I admit I don't know many answers. I just think humans are important, which is why I'm a humanist. It's like a person who likes butterflies is a lepidopterist.

I mean, I could've gone the homo-sapiens-phile direction, but that would've just opened up a whole other can of worms.

Quote:
And crap, we're having fun and we like each other.

Thanks,Ree! This is fun! And again, my apologies to the non ontologists in the group! I love this place, where else could I post 'ontology?'

De nada. This is fun - I love words, definitions, and being able to be opinionated in "public." You should see me with stree preachers....

(edited because I thought of something to add after I posted this.)

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 3:38 AM

Well now that I've seen how you define your self labeling humanism, I find it an acceptable label for and interesting person

Not that anyone needs my approval for anything. But I'm glad to know your a humanist more of Montesquieu 's stripe than of Descartes’. Descartes was a C student if you ask me. (If your wise you won’t.)

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 5:20 AM

ZOID

My $2.07 (after sales tax) worth:

Jesus was the ultimate humanist: He said the only thing an individual needs to find enlightenment and spiritual salvation is a personal relationship with Him. No other mediator -- church, state or society -- is required. It all springs from the Self, in service to the Lord, along the path He sets your feet upon.

That's a pretty strong statement of belief, and I apologize to anyone whose sensibilities it offends. But if you think you're scandalized, you should have seen the look on the face of the elder when I said it, and the suddenly quiet and thoughtful looks on the faces of the (adult) Sunday school class. I had him and he knew it...

Philosophically,

zoid

P.S.
Yes, I'm a faithful Christian; but, I've got a real problem with the religions of Men. At some point, a man or group of men get around to slicing up The Bible and parceling it out to support their agenda of control. They set themselves up as required go-betweens, a necessary bridge between God and human that is actually more harmful than good.

I again apologize to those who -- at the mere mention of Jesus or religious belief in general -- become infuriated. It's what I believe, and I'm not 'selling it', any more than those who claim agnosticism or atheism as a belief system. (As a distinguished, if elfin Canadian once sang, "If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice.") I beg your indulgence, to be different.
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 6:00 AM

Eli, I try never to put Descartes before the horse.

Sorry.

Sometimes I have an inability to not use a lame joke, no matter how old it is.....

Zed - Personally, I am not offended by your statement of belief. It's not "belief" that offends me, it's the luggage that usually comes with it, and as far as I can tell, you've only got a carry-on.

I should stop while I'm ahead, huh?

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 6:08 AM

Got no problem with Christ. A good fellow. Generally god is welcome on my boat. Tends to be christians who ain't. Interesting christian anarcho-syndicalists like yourself excepted. I even left a seat for him at my wedding. He may have stopped by, but I was busy and missed him when I visited his table. Maybe he got sick of sitting with my wife's 'christian' hypocrite cheering section of the family.

Sorry. I got bitter about church types a long time ago, but jesus is just alright with me.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 6:15 AM

If I could I'd put Decartes before a horse. Then trample him.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 7:13 AM

ZOID

ReeQueen wrote:

Quote:
...It's not "belief" that offends me, it's the luggage that usually comes with it, and as far as I can tell, you've only got a carry-on...

To carry your playful analogy (metaphor?) only a little farther, temporally: Hopefully, when I get to baggage check there won't be something metallic in the carry-on, which gets me pulled out of the line. I mean, it may be silvery and sharp, but it really has no capacity for harm, and can be useful for clipping the offending edges off of stuff.

Luckily, I've got a good Agent to get me out of such predicaments, and the queue for my departure gate is reported to be quite short...

Allegorically,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 9:21 AM

To push it even further: I'm in the smoker's lounge, watching people at the various departure gates, each going to the destination of their choice. I'm just hanging out, trying to decide which destination is best, but mostly just enjoying a nicotine fix.

Hopefully I also have a good book to read.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 9:46 AM

ZEEK

Doesn't anyone else find parts of this discussion funny...in a sad sorta way? People are in here acting like they are accepting of everyone and that it's the high road everyone else should be taking. Then in the same breath they say other cultures are evil and wrong because they don't like the things they do. I'm sorry that some people's actions and motives go against your beliefs but why were you given the all powerful position of deciding what's right and wrong? If a culture decides that gential mutilation is where it's at then that's for them to decide. If that same culture goes through a revolution and changes the way things work for them, that's all good too. The only time I would say there is any reason to jump in and try to change a culture is when that culture threatens to harm or change another culture. Which puts some of the people in this thread on the bad list in my opinion. Sure it might take some cultures longer than others to get to a state that they actually want to be in. There's also a good chance that some of us could step in and do things to help them along. I'm a believer that people have to learn to do things on their own though. It might take a while and there might be pitfalls along the way, but in the end I think they'll be stronger for it.

Anyway there's my thoughts. No need to buy into them if you don't like them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I'm sorry that some people's actions and motives go against your beliefs but why were you given the all powerful position of deciding what's right and wrong? If a culture decides that gential mutilation is where it's at then that's for them to decide.

Wow.

Then I guess you'd be fine if someone cut your genitals off, if our society said it was OK. You wouldn't want anyone to step in and save you because that might have an adverse effect on society. By stopping genital mutilation. On you.

I do not want to live in your world.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 10:30 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I'm sorry that some people's actions and motives go against your beliefs but why were you given the all powerful position of deciding what's right and wrong? If a culture decides that gential mutilation is where it's at then that's for them to decide.

Wow.

Then I guess you'd be fine if someone cut your genitals off, if our society said it was OK. You wouldn't want anyone to step in and save you because that might have an adverse effect on society. By stopping genital mutilation. On you.

I do not want to live in your world.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

How am I supposed to know that one? If I was raised to believe it was the right thing to do maybe I would be fine with it. Then again maybe I wouldn't. In which case I should do what I think is right to prevent or all together stop the practice. I wouldn't expect some other country to fight a war for me though.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 2:42 PM