Post by tjaman on Apr 13, 2007 2:38:12 GMT -5
Happy Friday the 13th, everyone.
And happy early birthday to Auntie.
Birthdays are a good time to take stock, and I'm inspired to do so.
Today was a good day. I walked twice as far as I'd intended to, and over the noon hour I took in a book discussion at the college. I didn't catch the title but it focused on people with strict conservative religious upbringings exploring Buddhism and then, as a rule, returning to their native faith tradition with new eyes.
It was a good discussion. It seemed like the presenter thought that the ecumenical explorations these people made in their personal faith journeys was more scandalous than most of the three or four dozen folks in attendance thought it was, but as a seeker myself I know that a big part of what ends up being personal truth is discovered as part of the journey. From the questions being asked, I wasn't the only one who'd discovered this. In fact, there was only one person in attendance who asked anything that seemed especially partisan, which was to ask if the essayists represented in the book had returned to their home faith because they found no truth in Buddhism. She seemed to need for the answer to be "yes," but really, that answer was unavailable. One of the essayists in the book was still primarily Buddhist and the others described having been transformed by the experience, so I guess I'd be prepared to suggest -- humbly -- that certainly some of them had discovered some truth there.
In part of the breaking down of ego and rebuilding a renewed world view I am seeking to explore a question of misogyny.
It was raised organically enough and it took me enough by surprise that my first instinct was to get defensive. But honestly, this is probably something I should be exploring anyway.
The first thing to do is identify whether I'm a pedophile or a misogynist. If finding Michelle Tractenberg at the age of 15 to be attractive sexually is the same as finding, say, Sofia Villanovna from "Medium" to be attractive sexually. I'd argue that while Sofia's certainly very pretty and well on her way to being a little heartbreaker, she is not asked to dance about provocatively wearing tight clothing.
If she were to, she could probably manage to drop a whole lot of jaws out here in teeveeland, but she's currently being directed to present herself as nothing more nor less than a slightly awkward and shy middle schooler.
30-somethings who would leer at such a child are people to be concerned about.
In the scene in question, Michelle does so much more than just swing her hips. She opens with a powerful ballet number that opens onto a seduction scene arranged by the demon in charge of manipulating all of this musical mayhem. Dawn is not being inappropriately sexualized, in my opinion. That is, she is not actively the focus of the Gaze. She's being put there and part of what makes the scene powerful is that she's disturbed by the events in play and what she's learning but she's not in control of the dance -- or whether she has to marry Sweet or not.
None of this has anything to do with the joke about Adam Busch coming to my home and stealing my Dawnbot (which no one will be surprised to learn I completely made up), or the various show references I made afterwards, or the fact that I really did go back and forth about having the Dawnbot or the Buffybot, but I remembered I had a Dawnbot at the Tropicana back on TVTome, so I resurrected her for the joke. Or the observation that in selected scenes, Dawn is, in her direction, being powerfully sexualized. The second time is to provide a contrast with the fear she faces -- a classic juxtaposition used in teen horror flicks since they started making them.
That and she's not entirely in control of either situation, demonstrated by her actions, which is a solid narrative device.
These scenes at the top of my mind after all the discussion, I made an avatar with four frames from OMWF, and was gently reminded that that could be misinterpreted.
So the question -- and it might not be appropriate but I know I'm not a pedophile so you'll have to take my word for it -- is if I'm a misogynist.
And this is a much more interesting question.
A few years ago, shortly after I'd just been pretty decisively rejected by a woman in my theater group, a friend of mine asked me if I was resentful of women.
And I didn't have a good answer. I didn't necessarily know what it said about me either way. I didn't have the world's greatest opinion of them, certainly. And really, when you've spent your entire life being told you're inadequate in some way or another, it's not a Kirkegaardian leap you're taking if you believe it.
And then I met Melvin Udall in "As Good As It Gets":
Female fan: "I've gotta ask -- how do you write women so well?"
Melvin Udall: "I start with a man, and then take away all reason and responsibility."
Ouch.
I don't think I could be the Jossverse or Aaron Sorkin fan I am or be the avid collector of Agatha Christie, Ngaio Marsh and Sue Grafton that I am if I were a misogynist. But I could just enjoy seeing women get their hearts ripped open -- that they're not perfect, that they have stuff to deal with too, even if they seem all but magic sometimes somehow.
I don't know. I don't. Until I do, I'll sport the White Album look -- at least until I can think of something better.
And I just need to reiterate I don't resent the question or its being asked or the implications. Despite an informal, anything-goes atmosphere, we've lost posters for being a frathouse in the past and in that anyone was feeling uncomfortable, it's a good thing you spoke up because you probably weren't the only one.
For me, I wish everyone a sweet weekend, and if I am harboring any resentments against an entire race of people, here's hoping I might come to experience a broader range. Have fun!
And happy early birthday to Auntie.
Birthdays are a good time to take stock, and I'm inspired to do so.
Today was a good day. I walked twice as far as I'd intended to, and over the noon hour I took in a book discussion at the college. I didn't catch the title but it focused on people with strict conservative religious upbringings exploring Buddhism and then, as a rule, returning to their native faith tradition with new eyes.
It was a good discussion. It seemed like the presenter thought that the ecumenical explorations these people made in their personal faith journeys was more scandalous than most of the three or four dozen folks in attendance thought it was, but as a seeker myself I know that a big part of what ends up being personal truth is discovered as part of the journey. From the questions being asked, I wasn't the only one who'd discovered this. In fact, there was only one person in attendance who asked anything that seemed especially partisan, which was to ask if the essayists represented in the book had returned to their home faith because they found no truth in Buddhism. She seemed to need for the answer to be "yes," but really, that answer was unavailable. One of the essayists in the book was still primarily Buddhist and the others described having been transformed by the experience, so I guess I'd be prepared to suggest -- humbly -- that certainly some of them had discovered some truth there.
In part of the breaking down of ego and rebuilding a renewed world view I am seeking to explore a question of misogyny.
It was raised organically enough and it took me enough by surprise that my first instinct was to get defensive. But honestly, this is probably something I should be exploring anyway.
The first thing to do is identify whether I'm a pedophile or a misogynist. If finding Michelle Tractenberg at the age of 15 to be attractive sexually is the same as finding, say, Sofia Villanovna from "Medium" to be attractive sexually. I'd argue that while Sofia's certainly very pretty and well on her way to being a little heartbreaker, she is not asked to dance about provocatively wearing tight clothing.
If she were to, she could probably manage to drop a whole lot of jaws out here in teeveeland, but she's currently being directed to present herself as nothing more nor less than a slightly awkward and shy middle schooler.
30-somethings who would leer at such a child are people to be concerned about.
In the scene in question, Michelle does so much more than just swing her hips. She opens with a powerful ballet number that opens onto a seduction scene arranged by the demon in charge of manipulating all of this musical mayhem. Dawn is not being inappropriately sexualized, in my opinion. That is, she is not actively the focus of the Gaze. She's being put there and part of what makes the scene powerful is that she's disturbed by the events in play and what she's learning but she's not in control of the dance -- or whether she has to marry Sweet or not.
None of this has anything to do with the joke about Adam Busch coming to my home and stealing my Dawnbot (which no one will be surprised to learn I completely made up), or the various show references I made afterwards, or the fact that I really did go back and forth about having the Dawnbot or the Buffybot, but I remembered I had a Dawnbot at the Tropicana back on TVTome, so I resurrected her for the joke. Or the observation that in selected scenes, Dawn is, in her direction, being powerfully sexualized. The second time is to provide a contrast with the fear she faces -- a classic juxtaposition used in teen horror flicks since they started making them.
That and she's not entirely in control of either situation, demonstrated by her actions, which is a solid narrative device.
These scenes at the top of my mind after all the discussion, I made an avatar with four frames from OMWF, and was gently reminded that that could be misinterpreted.
So the question -- and it might not be appropriate but I know I'm not a pedophile so you'll have to take my word for it -- is if I'm a misogynist.
And this is a much more interesting question.
A few years ago, shortly after I'd just been pretty decisively rejected by a woman in my theater group, a friend of mine asked me if I was resentful of women.
And I didn't have a good answer. I didn't necessarily know what it said about me either way. I didn't have the world's greatest opinion of them, certainly. And really, when you've spent your entire life being told you're inadequate in some way or another, it's not a Kirkegaardian leap you're taking if you believe it.
And then I met Melvin Udall in "As Good As It Gets":
Female fan: "I've gotta ask -- how do you write women so well?"
Melvin Udall: "I start with a man, and then take away all reason and responsibility."
Ouch.
I don't think I could be the Jossverse or Aaron Sorkin fan I am or be the avid collector of Agatha Christie, Ngaio Marsh and Sue Grafton that I am if I were a misogynist. But I could just enjoy seeing women get their hearts ripped open -- that they're not perfect, that they have stuff to deal with too, even if they seem all but magic sometimes somehow.
I don't know. I don't. Until I do, I'll sport the White Album look -- at least until I can think of something better.
And I just need to reiterate I don't resent the question or its being asked or the implications. Despite an informal, anything-goes atmosphere, we've lost posters for being a frathouse in the past and in that anyone was feeling uncomfortable, it's a good thing you spoke up because you probably weren't the only one.
For me, I wish everyone a sweet weekend, and if I am harboring any resentments against an entire race of people, here's hoping I might come to experience a broader range. Have fun!