blah blah blah
Jun. 2nd, 2003 01:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rusty_haloI have a confession to make. I can't stand Angel, the character. I love Angel, the series, but the character leaves me cold. I don't hate him the way I hate Buffy (where I flinch every time the nasty bitch shows up onscreen). I enjoy watching Angel's journey, and I find him to be an interesting and thought-provoking character. But I don't sympathize with him, and I get a gleeful little thrill when bad things happen to him.
A lot of this comes from the fact that Angel is the type of Alpha hero that I've never been able to stand. I hate those big strong emotionally closed-off tough guys. The American hero archetype just irritates me to no end. Part of it is that I think one of the biggest problems with our society is that boys are taught to be tough and hard and closed-off from their emotions. This leads to macho nonsense (god, just look at our president!) and violence and the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.
In one of my TV classes last year, we watched commercials for children's toys and compared the way gender is constructed for males and females. The girls were usually passive and weak, whereas the boys were active and strong. The girl toys were things like dolls and play ovens, clearly setting up "housewife" as a women's ultimate life goal. The boy's toys were things like weapons and cars and tanks, constructing this view of masculinity as active and hard and violent. There were no boys in the girl commercials, and no girls in the boy commercials.
Okay, that's a tangent. But still, my point is that Angel is totally this archetype of what masculinity is constructed to be.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chase820 has an excellent post describing this type of hero here. rahirah has a great post countering it here. (I certainly respect Chase's preferences, but mine are totally in line with Barb's--the only relationship I can actually get behind is an equal relationship, no matter how much I may enjoy unequal relationships in slash fic).
Angel's role in Buffy's story particularly irritates me. Buffy perceives him as this dark, romantic, mysterious, moody older man, but that's not what a real successful relationship is based on. That's what teenage fantasies are based on, sure, but real relationships require that the people are honest with each other, treat each other as equals, and share the decision-making process. I absolutely cannot stand Angel's tendency to make decisions for Buffy without consulting her (like leaving her in GDII and again in IWRY). If a man tried to do that to me, I'd so kick his ass, and dump him like you wouldn't believe. The thing I loved about Spike/Buffy back in the day was that they were equals; Spike didn't try to dominate her, protect her, or make decisions for her the way Angel did. He knew that she could take care of herself, and he stepped out of the way and let her do it.
James Marsters once gave this interview where he said that the fact that Spike didn't protect Buffy in the opener of Tabula Rasa proves that Spike wasn't as good of a boyfriend as he seemed. I couldn't disagree more. I loved scenes like that because they showed that Spike knew that Buffy could take care of herself; she didn't need some Big Strong Man swooping in to do things for her. IMO, chivalry is stupid patriarchal nonsense. People think it's harmless, but it sets up a power dynamic and a way of perceiving heterosexual relationships that extend into people's thinking way beyond simple matters like opening doors or pulling out chairs.
I'm also really creeped out by older man/younger woman relationships, because they set up a power dynamic that I find terribly unhealthy. The older man has more age and experience, so the woman goes along with him because she doesn't know any better. A lot of guys seem to get off on this power, and on this idea of a woman as submissive and willing (the porn spam I get plays into this idea, btw; at least once a day I get something like "Rip her apart with your huge johnson!" ugh). Part of my disgust is very personal; my first relationship was a lot like this. It was stupid and fucked up, but I was 17 and completely without experience and didn't know any better. I'm really annoyed the girls are taught to perceive this kind of relationship as an ideal, because it makes them vulnerable to older men who take advantage of that.
The other reason Angel pisses me off is that he reminds me of my father. My dad is this tough guy who thinks he knows everything. He's so emotionally repressed sometimes I wonder if he even has emotions. He's cold and unpleasant and he tries to dictate what everyone else should do with their lives. He reminds me eerily of Angel, in demeanor and ways of speaking and attitude and everything.
Probably the only time I ever sympathized with Angel was in his relationship with Connor, because Boreanaz actually did manage to show some emotion there. And while I completely think Angel made the wrong decision at the end, I understand what a difficult situation it was to make any kind of appropriate choice. I can also enjoy Angel in fanfic, because fan writers can make him so much more interesting and complex than the show usually does. But when, on the show, he does moronic things like declare himself a "champion" (completely without irony) I'm reminded of how much I just can't stand him.
Much of the reason I love Spike is that he's such the opposite of Angel. He doesn't try to control women; instead, he melds himself to suit their needs. He doesn't need to dominate or control; he usually just goes along with what they want. He trusts Buffy to make her own decisions, and he supports her in them even when he disagrees (like in "Dirty Girls"). (Actually I think he goes too far in this area; I'd prefer to see him less submissive and more of an equal. But I love that he's not dominating.) He doesn't repress every emotion he feels; instead, he wears his heart on his sleeve. He'd never do something moronic and self-righteous like declare himself a "champion," and he'd mock the hell out of anyone who did. Plus, Spike does gender subversive things like wear eyeliner and nail polish; he doesn't buy into the big tough masculine stereotype like Angel does. (There's a very interesting essay about this called "'Love’s Bitch but Man Enough to Admit It': Spike’s Hybridized Gender").
I wouldn't write an essay about how Spike is sooo much better than Angel, because I know it's just a matter of preferences and setting the two against each other is stupid. People are going to like who they're going to like. But I have to say, I pretty much agree 100% with the pro-Spike essays, even though I understand intellectually that they're biased.
A lot of this comes from the fact that Angel is the type of Alpha hero that I've never been able to stand. I hate those big strong emotionally closed-off tough guys. The American hero archetype just irritates me to no end. Part of it is that I think one of the biggest problems with our society is that boys are taught to be tough and hard and closed-off from their emotions. This leads to macho nonsense (god, just look at our president!) and violence and the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.
In one of my TV classes last year, we watched commercials for children's toys and compared the way gender is constructed for males and females. The girls were usually passive and weak, whereas the boys were active and strong. The girl toys were things like dolls and play ovens, clearly setting up "housewife" as a women's ultimate life goal. The boy's toys were things like weapons and cars and tanks, constructing this view of masculinity as active and hard and violent. There were no boys in the girl commercials, and no girls in the boy commercials.
Okay, that's a tangent. But still, my point is that Angel is totally this archetype of what masculinity is constructed to be.
chase820 has an excellent post describing this type of hero here. rahirah has a great post countering it here. (I certainly respect Chase's preferences, but mine are totally in line with Barb's--the only relationship I can actually get behind is an equal relationship, no matter how much I may enjoy unequal relationships in slash fic).Angel's role in Buffy's story particularly irritates me. Buffy perceives him as this dark, romantic, mysterious, moody older man, but that's not what a real successful relationship is based on. That's what teenage fantasies are based on, sure, but real relationships require that the people are honest with each other, treat each other as equals, and share the decision-making process. I absolutely cannot stand Angel's tendency to make decisions for Buffy without consulting her (like leaving her in GDII and again in IWRY). If a man tried to do that to me, I'd so kick his ass, and dump him like you wouldn't believe. The thing I loved about Spike/Buffy back in the day was that they were equals; Spike didn't try to dominate her, protect her, or make decisions for her the way Angel did. He knew that she could take care of herself, and he stepped out of the way and let her do it.
James Marsters once gave this interview where he said that the fact that Spike didn't protect Buffy in the opener of Tabula Rasa proves that Spike wasn't as good of a boyfriend as he seemed. I couldn't disagree more. I loved scenes like that because they showed that Spike knew that Buffy could take care of herself; she didn't need some Big Strong Man swooping in to do things for her. IMO, chivalry is stupid patriarchal nonsense. People think it's harmless, but it sets up a power dynamic and a way of perceiving heterosexual relationships that extend into people's thinking way beyond simple matters like opening doors or pulling out chairs.
I'm also really creeped out by older man/younger woman relationships, because they set up a power dynamic that I find terribly unhealthy. The older man has more age and experience, so the woman goes along with him because she doesn't know any better. A lot of guys seem to get off on this power, and on this idea of a woman as submissive and willing (the porn spam I get plays into this idea, btw; at least once a day I get something like "Rip her apart with your huge johnson!" ugh). Part of my disgust is very personal; my first relationship was a lot like this. It was stupid and fucked up, but I was 17 and completely without experience and didn't know any better. I'm really annoyed the girls are taught to perceive this kind of relationship as an ideal, because it makes them vulnerable to older men who take advantage of that.
The other reason Angel pisses me off is that he reminds me of my father. My dad is this tough guy who thinks he knows everything. He's so emotionally repressed sometimes I wonder if he even has emotions. He's cold and unpleasant and he tries to dictate what everyone else should do with their lives. He reminds me eerily of Angel, in demeanor and ways of speaking and attitude and everything.
Probably the only time I ever sympathized with Angel was in his relationship with Connor, because Boreanaz actually did manage to show some emotion there. And while I completely think Angel made the wrong decision at the end, I understand what a difficult situation it was to make any kind of appropriate choice. I can also enjoy Angel in fanfic, because fan writers can make him so much more interesting and complex than the show usually does. But when, on the show, he does moronic things like declare himself a "champion" (completely without irony) I'm reminded of how much I just can't stand him.
Much of the reason I love Spike is that he's such the opposite of Angel. He doesn't try to control women; instead, he melds himself to suit their needs. He doesn't need to dominate or control; he usually just goes along with what they want. He trusts Buffy to make her own decisions, and he supports her in them even when he disagrees (like in "Dirty Girls"). (Actually I think he goes too far in this area; I'd prefer to see him less submissive and more of an equal. But I love that he's not dominating.) He doesn't repress every emotion he feels; instead, he wears his heart on his sleeve. He'd never do something moronic and self-righteous like declare himself a "champion," and he'd mock the hell out of anyone who did. Plus, Spike does gender subversive things like wear eyeliner and nail polish; he doesn't buy into the big tough masculine stereotype like Angel does. (There's a very interesting essay about this called "'Love’s Bitch but Man Enough to Admit It': Spike’s Hybridized Gender").
I wouldn't write an essay about how Spike is sooo much better than Angel, because I know it's just a matter of preferences and setting the two against each other is stupid. People are going to like who they're going to like. But I have to say, I pretty much agree 100% with the pro-Spike essays, even though I understand intellectually that they're biased.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 11:04 am (UTC)i'm so checking out that slayage essay.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:09 pm (UTC)and he can pull it off! *snicker* oi, angel wearing eyeliner? *shudder!*
but really, nice not-essay ;) I can't stand Angel, either... I tried, I really did... I even cried as buffy killed him in season 2 but as he came back I still didn't like him and the reasons you named really cover it quite nicely... he's that "I know I'm a hero and I'll tell you all the time in case you forget it but meanwhile I'm all broody, suffering manly-man sitting in my corner and act as if I couldn't bear the cross of being a hero"-hero (damn, that was one long word*gg*)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:21 pm (UTC)I did cry when Buffy killed Angel, not for Angel (because he was so poorly developed as an individual character at that point that there was nothing there for me to care about) but for Buffy, because of the horrible, heart-breaking choice she had to make.
I always got the impression that they were trying to make the point that the Big Strong Manly Man is NOT the right relationship choice, and that they were contrasting him with the Nice Guy (Xander) and eventually were planning to put Buffy with Xander. Then the B/A thing got huge, that got sidetracked, they brought Angel back for S3, and it all went to hell from there. I can't believe Angel left in S3 and the stupid show is still playing the B/A nonsense at the end of S7!
(And god, how horribly matched are those two? Both dominant, controlling, emotionally closed off traditional Western "heroes." Without the doomed love melodrama to interrupt them, those two wouldn't last more than a month. They'd *never* be able to get along in any kind of real partnership.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:42 pm (UTC)They'd *never* be able to get along in any kind of real partnership.
needs to refer to Buffy and Angel in a relationship with each other. They won't be able to treat any partner like he or she would deserve.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:54 pm (UTC)Well, yeah, that too. But even so I think Buffy and Angel are particularly unsuited for each other.
Hey, I know! Angel can make all the decisions like the Big Manly Man he thinks he is, and then Buffy can beat him to a bloody pulp and leave him lying in an alley whenever he pisses her off! Twu wuv 4eva!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:45 pm (UTC)also with the kiss in choice... 'k, after having seen the whole episode it wasn't as bad anymore as when I had just seen the screens and was thinking WTF??? ok, I still thought that, but not THAT hard anymore ;)
>> those two wouldn't last more than a month<<
I don't know how the angel episode was called but I think something along the line of "I will remember you" or whatever.. where angel gets human? come on! those two people we get to see in that episode are *SO* extremly out of character, EVERY fanfiction is better written... and even if that's just the joy of being newly human and stuff... I wouldn't have given them a week before they started trying to kill each other...
sorry, long pointless rant with a lot of spelling mistakes ;) I'll shut up now :-*
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 12:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 01:06 pm (UTC)You know, I'm always saying I don't hate Angel... I have to say it over and over again, because I'm always ranting about him being a self-righteous bastard (especially when he's making some selfish decision for someone else without regard for what they would choose for themselves and we're supposed to see it as some big sacrfice. *cough*Connor*Buffy*cough* grrr)and pointing and laughing when bad things happen to him, particularly if Spike is the casue of the bad things, because... nyah nyah!
Sometimes it's hard to remember why I say I don't hate Angel, and I think it's mostly that I love his show, and I love all the people who love him, so I don't want to hate him. And he is a fascinating character... especially when he's being tortured.
Probably the only time I ever sympathized with Angel was in his relationship with Connor
I wholeheartedly agree, and I think it also had to do with the fact that no matter what he did, Angel couldn't win. Dads are Bad in the Jossverse, even when they're the hero, so Angel wasn't Mr. Perfect when dealing with Connor -- and Connor was such a fucked up little monkey. I'm gonna miss him. (I did *NOT* symapthize with him in Home. At. All. But I ranted about that in my LJ already)
I also tend to sympathize with Angel when he's dealing with Faith, because he really was the only one who gave her another chance and understood her, and I love me some Faith, so I really and truly like Angel when he's helping her.
And I like him when he's a dork -- basically whenever he's not Mr. Tall Dark and Handsome Sweeping Champion Hero-Guy, because I feel the same way about chivalry that you do.
(I lose a lot of respect for a guy when he says he'd never hit a girl -- "what if she hit you first? so you'd just sit there and let me kick your ass because it's 'wrong' to hit a girl?" Fuck that shit. I'd rather have a guy punch me than refuse to hit me because he thinks I'm weak. Not in a boyfriend-abusey way, but that's not really an issue as I'd sock him right back... if I wasn't the one who'd swung first)
I was B/A gal back when season 2 first aired -- but I really was 12. Okay, 13. 14. Whatever. The point is, I got older and I got over it. Becoming still makes me cry, because it hurts Buffy so damn much -- nothing to do with the killing of Angel. (Similar sitch in The Body -- I liked Joyce, but it's the way her death affects everybody else that gets me.)
I wouldn't write an essay about how Spike is sooo much better than Angel, because I know it's just a matter of preferences
That, and we all already know Spike is sooooo much better. ;) Seriously. He's stereotype-defying guy, and he never called himself a Champion -- made fun of himself when Buffy gave him the amulet, even.
It's going to be fun to have him on AtS next year -- I know you don't want him human, but you've gotta admit Angel's reaction to finding out Spike stole his shanshu will be amusing -- if that's what they do, of course. It's always fun when Spike one-ups Angel. In any case, the dynamic between them is going to be worth watching -- because Angel was the one who taught Spike all he knows about evil, there can be more Fun With Daddy Issues. Plus no one mocks Angel better than Spike.
Damn, I've been talking for a long time and I still don't seem to have a point. Other than "you are soo right." Heh. Shutting up now.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 01:28 pm (UTC)Yeah, I don't see Angel's tendency to "sacrfice" for the good of others (without consulting them, of course) as heroic; I see it as a terrible weakness. He doesn't want to put in the effort to make things work, so he just gives up. And not only that, but he does it in a way so that he can feel like a heroic martyr for doing it! If he truly cared for these people, he would put in the effort to make the relationships really work; he wouldn't just give up. (And Spike is such a contrast, because Spike is willing to put in the effort, no matter what.)
Angel's leaving Buffy "for her own good" would have been so much more palatable if he'd said "I'm not comfortable being in this relationship; I don't think I can make it work" instead of "You deserve a normal life" (which totally aggravated her already ridiculous "normal life" complex, and led to the boringness of Riley and her insane psychotic S6 issues).
The thing is, Spike would've found a way around that curse. He would've fought for a soul, or gotten a magical true-happiness preventing spell, or whatever! He wouldn't have just moped away feeling sorry for himself and breaking Buffy's heart in the process.
As for the normal life thing--hello! Vampire slayer! Normal life? Not exactly in the brochure.
And so he can't go out in sunlight; big deal. It's not worse than any other physical disability, and a lot less significant than some. Yet people with physical disabilities still make relationships work.
And so they couldn't have children. Yeah? There are people in real life who can't have children for whatever reason. There are plenty of ways around this, like fertility clinics and adoption. And that's assuming Buffy even wants to have children, which is quite an assumption to make given the so-called feminist POV of this show.
And the Connor thing. Yeah, the kid is seriously fucked up. Angel's got all the resources of Wolfram and Heart to try and rehabilitate him. In real life? Kids fuck up. Families fuck up. Sometimes they can heal and make it work; sometimes they can't. But to give up without even trying? That's so Angel. And it so pisses me off. (You could say he tried all season, but he really didn't. He kicked his teenage son, from another dimension, out to live on the streets of LA. And then he got jealous over Cordy and didn't try to help Connor until it was way too late.)
Oh, and ITA with you about the Faith thing. I forgot about that. I really did like Angel in those episodes with Faith; that's one thing he did that I can definitely get behind him, and one of the few times I thought he was really being a hero. Because it wasn't about himself (or, it was, but only tangentally). I really believed that he honestly wanted to help her, and it was so nice to see him using his experience to relate to someone and help her through a similar situation.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 01:19 pm (UTC)Interesting post. I can't say I've ever really grokked Angel in quite this way, though of course all the basic elements are there: emotionally closed off (*cough*DB can't act*cough*), uncommunicative, chisel-chinned lunk. I think one reason I haven't viewed him as Symbolic Conquering Phallus is that he's not a yob. And insofar as he's the masculine archetype in sober grey trousers and billowing coat, he's kind of meta-ironic. I.e., he's not up-front ironic about his masculinity or role as "champion", the way Spike would be. But it's kind of interesting that no one can take Angel totally seriously, except himself. The show is constantly poking fun at his hangdog broody side, as well as his dramatic coat-flappy side, and Cordy, Gunn, and Lorne (as well as Spike, from offstage) are always setting him up for the fall with ironic commentary.
Part of this seems to me to be a result of how the show has to run, to be any fun at all. We can't take that kind of posturing seriously all the time (though at times the angst hits the right note, and it's genuinely affecting); we, like the MoG, are always rolling our eyes and snarking in monotone. But there has to be something to snark about, or the show is hollow at its center. Angel's the straight guy. Like Buffy, who got pretty tiresome in the last couple of seasons of BtVS, as she matured and life got more serious and the show (to its credit) played her Warrior of the People role with more and more gravitas.
Anyway, I wouldn't argue for the health or sanity of the B/A relationship, but I don't think we were meant to find it healthy or sane. As you say, many young women find relationships with older men, and many of those relationships are messed up. If they're not terminal, the women grow and move on. And the men disappear into a hell dimension, because after you've dated a 17 year-old at 53, yourself, where else is there for you to do? So, I sort of think that was meant to be edgy and to comment on this pattern in our society. While exploiting it for entertainment, of course.
I don't know. This is an interesting reading, and I could keep rattling on, but I'm running out of space in my comment. Cool post. Post more. Thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 02:03 pm (UTC)I thought the end of AtS was wonderful and complex and emotionally affecting this year, but it was completely cheapened by Angel's return on BtVS. Suddenly he regressed back into the one-dimensional Alpha hero again. And as much as BtVS may have tried to criticize the B/A relationship, the series has also continually held it up as the epitome of romantic love. Apparently Buffy's "I loved Angel more than I'll ever love anything in this life" was supposed to be taken seriously, whereas I originally thought it was a sign of her stunted emotional growth (hello, sister? friends? mom?). Buffy's never been able to move on from her high school fantasy relationship, despite the fact that it ended four or five years ago, which I think is terribly unfortunate for a so-called "feminist" show. (And don't even get me started on the way that relationship is marketed).
Anyway, thanks for your feedback. Good to hear a differing opinion. :)
Re:
Date: 2003-06-02 04:12 pm (UTC)That's too bad about the whole "Angel was the lurve of my life" thing. Sometimes Joss acts like he's dumb. Don't get me started on that whole "we're taking the fight to them!" thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 05:25 pm (UTC)Heh, so with you on the "taking the fight to them" thing. I don't know if it's Joss acting dumb, or just Joss acting absent and his minions acting dumb.
Re:
Date: 2003-06-02 10:32 pm (UTC)I actually haven't seen "In the Dark."
I know. I know. I despair of myself, too.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 11:41 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-03 08:45 am (UTC)It accounts for the AU-ness of all my stuff, at least.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-03 09:52 am (UTC)Anyway, if you get a chance, you must see In the Dark. Because I know you well enough to know that you'll love it. I'm pasting Spike's opening scene below (copied from the transcript at studiesinwords.de) to remind you of how cool it is:
Come to think of it, that's almost exactly how I perceive Angel, too. ;)
Re:
Date: 2003-06-03 01:27 pm (UTC)"working up a load of sexual tension"
Ah, the Spike-voice was never so true.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 01:28 pm (UTC)IHA - Shameless Plug
Date: 2003-06-02 02:59 pm (UTC)Re: IHA - Shameless Plug
Date: 2003-06-02 03:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 05:51 pm (UTC)I have a confession to make. I can't stand Angel, the character...I don't sympathize with him, and I get a gleeful little thrill when bad things happen to him.
While I like Angel as a character and the a hero of his own series, I have never felt a very strong emotional attachment to him, or, in all honesty, anything even resembling attraction. Wesley pulls my heartstrings, Gunn I am fond of as the big brother I always wanted but never had, Kate's Scully-like fierce independence touched me deeply, and Lindsey just *rocked* (literally and metaphorically). In my eyes, Angel the Series is powerful because of all these characters' paths; as epic as Angel's destiny is, his story would get too dramatic and self-important without the team.
A lot of this comes from the fact that Angel is the type of Alpha hero that I've never been able to stand. I hate those big strong emotionally closed-off tough guys. The American hero archetype just irritates me to no end. Part of it is that I think one of the biggest problems with our society is that boys are taught to be tough and hard and closed-off from their emotions. This leads to macho nonsense (god, just look at our president!) and violence and the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.
Oh, where to begin with the WORD, WORD?!
My problems with Angel himself are actually limited-- there is enough fun being poked at soulboy #1, often quite accurate and thereby underlining that the writers don't take this show-- or their heroes, for that matter-- too seriously, but in general, I couldn't agree more. What you point out about male emotional self-isolation is all too true.
In one of my TV classes last year, we watched commercials for children's toys and compared the way gender is constructed for males and females. The girls were usually passive and weak, whereas the boys were active and strong. The girl toys were things like dolls and play ovens, clearly setting up "housewife" as a women's ultimate life goal. The boy's toys were things like weapons and cars and tanks, constructing this view of masculinity as active and hard and violent. There were no boys in the girl commercials, and no girls in the boy commercials.
Thank God for the slight changes to the TV landscape here; gender roles are beginning to get blurry-- in commercials, men are cuddling babies and raising their little kids as single parents, little girls run around and do fun stuff like climbing trees and running with lightsabres; in children's films, girls are tom-boyish and fierce little heroines--
sometimes. All too often, I concur, it's still the traditional roles, with rambunctious little boys and cute and sweet little girls. *sigh*
Angel is totally this archetype of what masculinity is constructed to be
Taken by himself, as drawn in BtVS, yes, very much so. Yet, it IS Buffy who remains the stronger one in the end and who is portrayed as the real hero-- even in Season One, it's not Angel who comes to the rescue, let alone Season Two.
the only relationship I can actually get behind is an equal relationship, no matter how much I may enjoy unequal relationships in slash fic
Really not an expert here, but isn't it a common argument explaining women's predisposition for slash fic that it is NOT necessarily about unequal relationships-- or rather, not about general and "natural" imbalances but only the individual ones?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-02 05:54 pm (UTC)This is a most annoying trait that actually made me dislike him strongly after the S3 finale. I came to this fandom a Spike fan but gave Angel a chance-- it IS a good story (the Souled!Vampire and the Slayer), after all; but this patronising attitude bothered me deeply.
To be fair, he has shown his support at other times and stepped back.
Yet, to me, one of the core elements of Angel's personality is that he takes himself very seriously-- yes, he is brave and steadfast, meaning that he WILL honestly offer to die for you, as in The Trial; however, it also means that his view and his decision is the one that counts at the end of the day, what with the mantle of tragic hero swooshing around him. Not exactly clicking with the idea of a partnership of equals.
The thing I loved about Spike/Buffy back in the day was that they were equals...He knew that she could take care of herself, and he stepped out of the way and let her do it.
Spike, in turn, does have some issues there, but yes, he doesn't lack the masculinity; he just choses to step back because he can, because he wants to.
People think it's harmless, but it sets up a power dynamic and a way of perceiving heterosexual relationships that extend into people's thinking way beyond simple matters like opening doors or pulling out chairs
Certainly, it's not harmless, but it definitely is pleasant; in a perfect world, we could each let the other gender show us some affection the old-fashioned way. But of course, this isn't Leibnitz' best of all possible worlds, and being the gracious lady to your overbearing lord will only perpetuate roles that are obsolete. Still, I'm fond of holding doors and pulling chairs-- consequently, I do it for others as well, male and female alike. A more courteous world all around! & ;-)
I'm also really creeped out by older man/younger woman relationships, because they set up a power dynamic that I find terribly unhealthy. The older man has more age and experience, so the woman goes along with him because she doesn't know any better.
Definitely a stereotype I eye with suspicion...as it should be. Why should you go along if you don't know any better? But not everybody's much into finding her own path first, sadly.
lot of guys seem to get off on this power, and on this idea of a woman as submissive and willing (the porn spam I get plays into this idea, btw
Oh yes. Ask me about this insightful discussion I had with an old friend of mine about this very topic with regards to sex, especially certain kinds...it's scary.
at least once a day I get something like "Rip her apart with your huge johnson!" ugh)...I'm really annoyed the girls are taught to perceive this kind of relationship as an ideal, because it makes them vulnerable to older men who take advantage of that.
Amen. Neither healthy nor sane, not to speak of the biological impracticality. & ;-) Though there can also be a strong personal component; one friend of mine-- law student, too-- is with this 42-year-old car mechanic (separated from his last wife, two children from two different women) and believes he's the One for her-- she does confess she's got father issues, though, her own Dad left the family when she was seven...
Much of the reason I love Spike is that he's such the opposite of Angel. He doesn't try to control women; instead, he melds himself to suit their needs...Plus, Spike does gender subversive things like wear eyeliner and nail polish; he doesn't buy into the big tough masculine stereotype like Angel does.
Very well put. Absolutely. Just a big part of the fascination that is Spike. You HAVE read Deepa's (and my) essays on him, right?
(There's a very interesting essay about this called "'Love’s Bitch but Man Enough to Admit It': Spike’s Hybridized Gender").
Will check it out.
Again, thanks for posting this.
Mona
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-03 05:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-03 07:38 am (UTC)Yeah, S7 Spike was a wuss who let himself be used and abused. It was terribly disturbing, and terribly unhealthy particularly if you imagine the genders reversed; just a picture a women changing herself to that extent to please a man, suffering for it, and then he barely seems to care. (And BUFFY, who was the abuser, doesn't change at all, yet all of her abusive behavior is forgiven by all the characters and the narrative because "she was in a bad place." Yeah, sure, let's just see a domestic abuser try that excuse in real life.)
I partially blame the soul for Spike's patheticness too; I am and will always be a soulless redemptionist. I wanted to see him as an ambiguous hero, struggling to do the right thing without a soul. For that reason, late season 5 Spike will always be my favorite incarnation of the character. I pretty much lost interest in him once he got the soul.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-03 08:04 am (UTC)Lisa
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-03 08:25 am (UTC)http://www.btvs-tabularasa.net/essays/DomesticAbuse.html
I have a much less great essay here:
http://www.allaboutspike.com/gender.html
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-03 01:03 pm (UTC)Lisa