Other comments...

[triskellian]

Chrestomancy: Useful advice, thanks. I'm doing one course a term for the next two terms, to ease back in, and because one of them is a pre-requisite for later stuff I want to do, although both are at too low a level to 'count' for anything.

Bateleur I: Thanks!

Bateleur II: OK, I know practically nothing about feminist theory, but it seems to me that a girl taking control of her life, and doing the traditional male hero kinda things, rather than moping around in her underwear waiting for a man to save her is reasonably feminist? OK, I haven't read the article yet, so I may be entirely wrong. Or she may have been writing about why Buffy and other vampire fic isn't feminist. The article is here, if anyone wants to go look and post a summary?

Comments

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Bateleur II was me:

a girl taking control of her life, and doing the traditional male hero kinda things, rather than moping around in her underwear waiting for a man to save her is reasonably feminist?

Yes it is. But if the traditional hero-type things of men wandering around, trampling the bad guys beneath your boot, and picking up the under-clad girl are sexist, then it is because of unreasonably one-sided interactions based on domination. In this case, by the hero.

In my opinion, feminist attempts to place or portray women in the same kinds of one-sided domineering role do not address the problem. The problem (in my opinion) is casual, generally accepted, abuse by the strong and successful of those who are weak or under-achieving. To me, the question of whether the abuser is male or female is one of circumstance rather than principle - men happen to be in a stronger position than women, on average. I wouldn't argue that it isn't feminist to place a woman in the traditional barbarian role, because I don't know anything about feminist theory either.

I would argue that it isn't productive, unless your goal is to preserve a general acceptance in fiction and life of abusive relationships, but to ensure that women are just as widely accepted as abusers as men are. But doing this won't stop women being abused and marginalised by patriarchal structures, it will merely allow some women (probably the most ruthless) to escape the trap.

That's what I mean by that which is bad within feminism - the understandable tendency of the abused to instinctively want to reverse the situation, rather than wanting to end it.

My favourite Buffy episode is the one in which Jonathon casts some kind of spell to make himself competent, rich, famous and popular. At the end Buffy "puts him in his place", explaining to him that some people are supposed to be successful and happy, whereas other people just don't deserve to be and shouldn't try to achieve that by cheating.

For me, this does not particularly recommend Buffy as a role model. It's bourne out throughout all the series, as much as I've seen them, by how upset Buffy tends to get with anyone who challenges her position as the best at killing vampires.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

"Bateleur II was me"

'scuse me ? Busy as I am, I haven't started getting ghost writers for my LJ comments quite yet !

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I got confused, I thought "bateleur II" was the second comment in that thread. But that wasn't what triskellian meant.