On White Guilt

May23

Oh, in the name of all that is holy, why, why do I continue to read these snotty “If you don’t like Girls, you don’t GET Girls” articles that inevitably annoy me and make me turn to the blog in a fit of irritation? Damn you, Girls and that insufferable sect of your fans. Stop distracting me! I want to write about my heartbreak over Dan Harmon being fired from Community and you’re making it harder by existing and being annoying! (Not that all or even most Girls fans are obnoxious; this review of the latest episode is very well-written and praises the show intelligently and analytically.)

Anyway, the latest snotty Girls review comes from Jezebel in the form of an article by Foster Kamer called “Boys Who Talk About Girls: And Now, a Black Guy Weighs In”. I thought the title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but apparently not – or rather, the title is meant to direct its tongue-in-cheekiness towards those whiners who talk about the racial problems of Girls, not towards the show itself. Here are a few questions that the writer asks his interviewee:

“And now we’re going to begin talking about the race issue, something we’ve strenuously avoided discussing in this column until now. What do you make of ‘Girls’ being lamented for a lack of diversity?

Does it bother you at all?Why not? Haven’t you read The Internet, sir? Why aren’t you pissed?

People made a very big deal about ‘Girls’ not looking like a model U.N. You don’t seem sufficiently scandalized. Explain yourself!

And here is the question I’ve been more excited to ask among all the others: It seems the majority of the racial diversity critique outrage is coming from White People Who Blog On The Internet. Why do you think that is?

White guilt seems to be an appropriate response to race in America, though, no?

But it’s really, grindingly irritating when it’s so outwardly projected in the same way any guilt is, in that it’s not going to do anything. It’s not going to bridge equality gaps. Like cheating on a spouse and confessing: The truth that will set you free is so often an indulgence. You’re getting it off your chest.”

My reaction to this? Well, I’m no lawyer, and the little I know of courtrooms comes from My Cousin Vinny and the handful of Law and Order episodes I’ve seen, but several of these so-called questions make me want to leap to my feet and say, “Objection! Leading the witness!” I don’t speak for “Anthony,” the interviewee who Kamer assigned a pseudonym, and I bet he probably means every word he says, but if he didn’t agree with Kamer, Kamer’s questioning style didn’t give him a lot of room to feel comfortable about voicing an opposing opinion. Kamer’s questions are dripping with so much smug that someone might feel like an idiot for disagreeing with him.

There are other garbage comments in this fine piece of journalism of the “critics of Girls are JUS’ JELLUS of Lena Dunham” variety, but I won’t talk about that now. Right now, I want to address the concept of white guilt.

White guilt is a term tossed around in many different spheres. If you’re a white person who tries to be actively anti-racist, you’re going to be accused of acting out of “white guilt.”

I’m a white person who has a tag on her blog called “white girl talkin’ about racism,” and I’m here to tell you that I don’t feel remotely guilty about being white. Maybe there are people who do, but I don’t. Why should I? I didn’t have any control over my Irish-Italian heritage. As Lady Gaga would say, I was born this way, baby.

On top of that, I don’t feel guilty for benefiting from white privilege. That’s because I find guilt to be a pretty useless emotion. Feeling guilty doesn’t actually solve anything, and acting out of guilt is a selfish thing to do.

Still, while I don’t feel “guilty” for being white or benefiting from white privilege, I do feel conscious of it. And I acknowledge that this kind of privilege isn’t fair. I’m an American, living in a country that is supposedly a melting pot, yet American people of color are often treated as foreign creatures, as Others, in their own damn country, and are still marginalized, still discriminated against in a way that I am not and never will be.

That’s why I occasionally blog about racism on a blog that’s mostly about feminism. I don’t care about assuaging my own guilt, because as I said, I don’t feel guilty. What I feel is a sense of social responsibility to add my voice to the people who are fighting for their own rights, who are fighting to be treated as equals in a society that pretends we’ve already achieved equality while lamenting over the statistics of “minority babies.”

Social responsibility, compassion, and the fact that I like to talk and write a lot: those are the three things that motivate me to write about racism, not guilt. I’m willing to bet that a lot of white people who talk about racism feel the same way.

But you know what? Forget about me. I’m not a victim of racism and this isn’t about my hurt feelings (especially because I don’t have any on this issue). You want to think that I’m motivated by guilt, and this whole post is a lie? Feel free to think that way.

But look at this article on Girls: written by a white guy, talking to one black guy who already agrees with him that Girls is totally not racially problematic at all, with the white guy theorizing that most of the complaints about racism are coming from white people.

Meanwhile, many of the posts in the comment section that are unhappy with the race issue on Girls are coming from…wait for it…people of color.

What a clever way to deflect criticisms of racism. Responding angrily to people of color who point out racism would be showing your true colors (choice of phrase intentional to make a point), but if a white person talks about racism, it’s so easy to turn it around, make accusations of white guilt, and make distractions so that the original point is lost.

And again, this isn’t me saying, “Boo-hoo, I try to be a good white person but people on the Internet are mean to me,” because guess what? Ranting about white guilt doesn’t really hurt white people. Ranting about white guilt often dismisses and erases similar comments coming from people of color.

BtVS and Consent: Episode 2.16 – “Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered”

May22

[Note: I'm writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday - or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered”
INCIDENT: Love spell
PERPETRATOR: Xander Harris
INTENDED VICTIM: Cordelia Chase
ACTUAL VICTIMS: every woman in Sunnydale except Cordelia Chase

The specifics: Cordelia breaks up with Xander on Valentine’s Day right after he gives her a locket and tells her how he felt about their relationship. Humiliated and angry, Xander seeks out Amy the witch, wanting her to put a love spell on Cordelia. He wants her to make Cordelia to want him so that he could break up with her. Amy performs the spell, but it backfires, affecting every woman in town except Cordelia. Buffy, Willow, Amy herself, Jenny Calendar, Joyce Summers, Harmony, Drusilla, and other women offer themselves to Xander, but he turns them down, and they grow increasingly violent, deciding to kill him, all having the “If I can’t have you, no one can!” mentality. Giles manages to get through to Amy and they work together to undo the spell. The women in town are released from the spell, all retaining memories of their emotions. Cordelia, moved by the fact that Xander intended the love spell for her, ditches her popular friends and gets back together with him.

The mind of the perpetrator: Xander’s intention is revenge. He’s heartbroken and angry and he wants Cordelia to suffer his pain. When the spell doesn’t seem to work on Cordelia, he gives it up as a lost cause and seems eager that Buffy is interested in him. The moment he realizes that Buffy is under the influence of a spell, and that this spell is affecting every woman around him, his first instinct is to run and hide. He also refuses to take advantage of Buffy when she offers herself to him wearing nothing but a trench coat. All of this indicates to me that Xander has no interest in violating a person’s physical consent, even when he’s attracted to that person. I also wonder if his memory of attacking Buffy during “The Pack” is influencing his decision at all.

Obviously, the spell is a violation of emotional and mental consent, something that Xander doesn’t really consider. I don’t believe he ever intended to use this spell to take physical advantage of Cordelia, or that he wanted to sleep with her and then ditch her. I think he wanted her to publicly declare her love for him so he could then break her heart – the reversal of what happened when he gave her the Valentine’s Day present. The idea of violating someone’s body clearly horrifies him, but the implications of toying with someone’s emotions is lost on him, even though he was once under the influence of a spell that affected HIS emotions.

The victims’ perspectives: The women affected by the spell all go through the same process. They fall for Xander, offer themselves to him, and when he rejects them, they feel angry, hurt, and betrayed, and decide to kill him. Their methods of seduction are a little different, though, depending on their personalities – Willow hides in Xander’s bed, Buffy shows up in a trench coat, Amy turns Buffy into a rat, Joyce acts motherly and then seductive, and Drusilla offers to turn him into a vampire.

Cordelia, the intended victim, reacts differently. She’s insulted, angry, and worried for her life when all the other women in town go crazy. When she realizes that Xander intended the spell for her, however, she softens and seems moved by his actions. At the end of the episode, she decides that being with the boy she loves is more important then impressing a group of frenemies she doesn’t actually like, and walks off arm-in-arm with Xander.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

I’m putting this behind a cut because I have SO much to say about this episode. Continue reading →

“Girls” and the Nature of Criticism

May21

Remember when I predicted that Girls would become that show where not liking it was akin to “not getting it,” and “You just don’t understand Girls” is said in a tone of voice unique to hipsters produced in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, who survive solely on fair trade coffee and vinyl records?

Well, some of those suspicions have been confirmed. I was looking at my site stats the other day to see where people had found my blog, and I came across this tumblr called goodaesthetic that took issue with my initial commentary on Girls:

” First off she mentions in her about me to ‘not take life too seriously’, and yet her judgements against Girls basically prove she is in fact taking life too seriously. A guy having a weird/stumbling rape fantasy is not akin to actual real anal old man rape! They should not make you equally uncomfortable. That is not the fault of the show, but instead the fault of your own sexual hang ups. The things that turn people on can often disgust others, but as long as their actions are consensual there is no reason to judge anyone.”

This comment was in response to my saying that I found a rape fantasy scene in Girls more uncomfortable to watch than an actual rape scene from The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. On the surface, I understand why this comparison would seem mind-boggling, but I tried to use as many “I” statements as possible in my original post. I never said that having a rape fantasy was akin to actual rape;  I tried to say that, on a personal, visceral level, Girls made me more uncomfortable than The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Why did a scene involving a rape fantasy make me squirm more than an actual rape scene? I’m not quite sure. Maybe it’s because I saw Dragon Tattoo with a friend in a movie theater and could discuss the film with her as soon as the credits rolled, while I watched that episode of Girls in my room, alone, with a computer screen close to my face, in a more intimate setting with no one else to help me process what I just watched.

Or, maybe it’s because The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo didn’t expect me to find any humor in that rape scene, while Girls wanted me to think that sex scene was oh-so-funny and oh-so-true-to-life and HILARIOUSLY and REALISTICALLY awkward.

Whatever the reason, I felt the need to clarify what I meant. When I write that I feel uncomfortable when watching that particular sex scene in Girls, I’m not trying to tell everyone to feel uncomfortable along with me. I’m only saying that I, personally, found the scene uncomfortable to watch, and I didn’t find it funny.

Also, I consider myself pretty “sex positive,” but if I have to applaud or laugh at Girls’s Adam for acting out his “raping an eleven-year-old” fantasy on Hannah in order to be “sex positive,” then send me over to the “sex negative” side and dub me Judge Judy and Executioner, because even if there’s no actual violation of consent with acting out that fantasy, it’s still hella gross – especially if your partner isn’t prepared for it ahead of time.

Anyway, moving on:

“I keep hearing this ‘the sex scenes are too awkward to watch’ shit. I don’t know what kind of magical movie porn sex with nicely lit candles and glistening bodies most people are having, but last time I checked sex is way awkward. There is no non-dorky way to take off white gym socks or boxer briefs. Moving between positions especially when you don’t overtly plan it, often leads to some weird hybrid non-functional kama sutra reject body situations. I have kicked dudes in the face way too often.”

This is true, and one thing I genuinely like about Girls is the show’s willingness to depict sex as occasionally awkward and uncomfortable, like when Marnie bumped her head against the top of the bunk bed while engaging in makeup sex that eventually turned out to be breakup sex. That kind of thing happens more frequently than we’d like to admit, and I appreciate the show’s willingness to go there.

Of course, that same episode had a scene where Jessa had a conversation with her ex-boyfriend where he firmly insisted several times that they were not going to have sex, followed immediately by a scene where they tear each other’s clothes off while wacky music plays. You’ll forgive me for not giving cookies for realism when the show employs one of the most tiresome sitcom and rom-com cliches.

Then there’s this:

“She also writes about how she finds the characters unlikable, uninteresting, and even cliche…just not even going to respond to that shit, especially since she seems to love The Vampire Diaries and Glee…’nuff said.”

I don’t care that this person doesn’t like The Vampire Diaries or Glee (the second of which I stopped watching months ago, but that’s besides the point), or that this person thinks less of my taste because I blog about these two shows. I’m quoting this part of the post because I want to ask this question: can someone please tell me the last time either The Vampire Diaries or Glee made any claims to being realistic? I believe both shows make a point of being over-the-top. My expectations for a teen vampire soap opera and a teen satire-musical are going to be different than a show that wants to be Freaks and Geeks except with spoiled twentysomethings instead of clueless teenagers.

Finally, my favorite part:

“Ladies and writing like this are the reason I stopped frequenting Jezebel. This type thinks of themselves as funny, interesting feminists, but they often come across as just girl haters. If you don’t ‘get’ or like Girls don’t watch it. Meanwhile all that energy you are wasting criticizing a show that is unquestionably unique and unprecedented could be spent writing angry emails to CBS to fucking cancel Two and a Half Men already.”

I’m not going to address the part where she doesn’t think I’m interesting or funny, because that’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it. (I’m assuming this person is a woman.) What makes me raise my eyebrows is the label of “girl hater.” What exactly makes me and/or the writers of Jezebel girl haters? Is it the fact that we’re criticizing a woman-centric show created by a woman? Now, I’ve seen some gross, misogynistic, body-shaming comments and personal attacks against Lena Dunham on other areas of the web, but I didn’t do any of that. (Besides, everyone knows that I don’t just hate girls; I’m a Stalinist, so I hate everybody.)

Also, I always laugh whenever I see comments such as, “If you don’t like this show that you are writing about, don’t watch it,” because I always say, “And if you don’t like reading criticisms of a show you enjoy, read something else.”

As for the suggestion that I write angry letters to CBS asking them to cancel Two and a Half Men…well, let me put it this way. There’s a reason why I write about Girls and not Two and a Half Men, why I tweet feminist comments at President Obama but not Mitt Romney, or indeed, why I respond to this tumblr post but don’t address the conservative anti-feminist blogger who has me on a blogroll (probably to point out why women like me are ruining the country) – because asking CBS to cancel Two and a Half Men, tweeting at Mitt Romney, and addressing the conservative anti-feminist blogger would be a complete waste of my time.

Over the last year and a half, I’ve discovered an unpleasant side of feminist criticism that accuses feminists and/or women of focusing on the “wrong” things. We shouldn’t write about the problems with Girls because so many other shows are MORE problematic, or we shouldn’t criticize the president for being a weak ally to women because the Republicans are so much worse.

Well, I’m not writing to Mitt Romney because I know he’ll never listen to me unless he undergoes a complete personality transplant, but I do think President Obama has it in him to be a stronger ally to women, which is why I focus my energies there.

Similarly, I’m writing about Girls because the writers of Two and a Half Men are never going to listen to me (and CBS will keep the show running until the end of time even if it involves cryogenically freezing the cast), but Lena Dunham just might.

I’m also writing about Girls and not Two and a Half Men because Girls inspires many conflicting emotions and thoughts in me, while Two and a Half Men doesn’t provoke any reaction other than, “This is sexist and unfunny.”

AND I’m writing about this tumblr post and not a different site that criticizes me because this post gave me a chance to address a couple of aspects of feminist criticism that I’ve been thinking about for awhile.

Ultimately, though, it seems I was right about Girls becoming That Show where disliking it means you don’t get it. Of course, if Girls was getting universal praise, the hipster demographic that the show appeals to wouldn’t like it nearly as much as they do now. So, particular segment of Girls fans? You’re welcome.

This latest episode, on the other hand, I thought was pretty funny, where more of the awkwardness was true to life and Hannah had a good balance of being an asshole and being actually sympathetic, so maybe the show is hitting its groove. Who knows?

Lady T Recommends “The Quiet Girl’s Guide to Violence”

May20

Hello, readers. This is a friendly reminder that Haberdasher Theatre’s The Wizard of Oz has $425 pledged and only 18 days until the Kickstarter campaign ends. Please consider chipping in to bring this production to life.

The second entry in my Lady T Recommends series is a film project based in Austin Texas called The Quiet Girl’s Guide to Violence. Are you already intrigued by the title? You should be, because this project looks really neat.

From the description on the Kickstarter site:

“The film follows Holly, a girl you would probably never notice, but she would notice you.  Holly looks like she was home schooled until she was thirty and we quickly learn that she’s seriously damaged goods.  She’s not okay, but she sort of almost starts to become okay after she encounters the man that was her childhood bully and deals with him in a fashion that her therapist (if she had a therapist) would definitely not approve of.  After that episode, she becomes more empowered in her regular life and her dealings with other seeming bullies she finds there.  But it’s a slippery slope, revenge, and when you choose violence as a means to end, well it usually doesn’t end well.  NO SPOILERS here, that’s just life.

Maybe.”

Why I’m recommending this project: The story of a quiet girl with a history of being bullied, who then learns how to stand up to her bullies, appeals to me for several different reasons. I love stories about women who learn how to embrace power, but I also love stories about people who struggle with power, who have to learn how to wield power without becoming corrupted or obsessed. The Holly character looks like she’ll struggle with these very issues in this short film.

As I said, those themes really appeal to me, but do you want to know what made me decide that I have to see this film?

“The film is set around Christmastime.”

A movie about a girl standing up to bullies is already going to interest me, but a Christmas movie about a girl standing up to bullies? I’m sold. The darkly comic tone that lies underneath this story about power makes me sold, sealed, and delivered.

The Quiet Girl’s Guide to Violence needs $7000 to be completely funded, and it currently has $5,993 pledged. There are 25 days left for the fundraising. Do you want to be one of the people who contributes to the funding of this project? Of course you do! You might receive an angry Rudolph button to put on your backpack! If you’re able, consider chipping in. The fundraiser page is here: The Quiet Girl’s Guide to Violence.

How I Met Your Mother (After Breaking A Million Hearts)

May17

I stopped watching How I Met Your Mother on a regular basis about halfway through season seven. After Robin’s fake non-pregnancy, Barney breaking up with Nora only to have Robin not break up with Kevin, one too many appearances of Chris Elliot as Lily’s annoying absentee father, and general wheel-spinning of the overall plot, I was tired of giving the show my time on Monday nights. But I’ve still been following the plot from a distance when I read myEntertainment Weekly and blogs.

I read that, in the season finale, Barney proposed to his girlfriend Quinn (Becki Newton), but a flashforward revealed a completely predictable outcome TOTAL SHOCKER that he would eventually marry Robin instead. Also, Ted ran off with Victoria, the non-Mother love interest he had sparked with the most, as she fled her wedding. (Also, Marshall and Lily had a baby whose middle name was Waitforit, crossing the line between “funny in-joke” and “OMG so embarrassing stop it right the hell now.”)

Now, How I Met Your Mother is a television show, not a movie, but I’m talking about it as part of the Rom-Com Project because it’s using one of my least favorite romantic comedy tropes, where cheating and breaking hearts is glorified as tragically romantic on the path to true love.

Look at Robin and Barney’s relationship this season. Robin was just about to profess her True Love Feelings to Barney RIGHT when he got a fateful phone call from Nora. Then Robin tried to get over Barney while dating her therapist Kevin (gross). Then Barney and Robin slept together, and Barney broke up with Nora, but in a twist that everyone NO ONE saw coming, Robin decided to stay with Kevin because the plot required her to she wasn’t ready to be with the man she truly loved. Eventually Barney got over his heartbreak with Robin and started dating Quinn to the point where he was ready to marry her…except next season, he will eventually break up with her and marry Robin. That leaves us with one failed Robin relationship and two hearts Barney broke in the Barney/Robin relationship roadkill.

And what of Ted? Ted, who broke up with Victoria in season one after he cheated on her with Robin, and will most certainly break up with Victoria again sometime in season eight, because we all know that she’s not the Mother. In the second go-around of the Ted/Victoria relationship, Victoria is a willing participant in her own eventual heartbreak, but she still broke the heart of the guy she left at the altar in order to be with Ted.

Maybe I shouldn’t criticize the show too harshly. After all, people often have many different romantic relationships before meeting The One. But there’s a difference between beginning and ending a relationship in good faith, and dragging out a relationship that clearly isn’t working for the purpose of killing time. How I Met Your Mother has traveled down this path twice with Ted, once with Robin, and twice with Barney – and yet, we’re still supposed to root for these people to be happy.

At least in the case of Ted, we know both times that his ill-advised relationship choices are doomed from the start. When Ted cheated on Victoria and still ended up with Robin four episodes later, there was still a bittersweet aspect to their getting together because we knew that it wouldn’t last. The case is the same for Victoria now that he’s dating her for the second time. But Robin and Barney have strung other people along, and will probably continue to string people along, until they’re finally ready to be together, and the writers expect the audience to continue to cheer them on. “Who cares if they have to trample on other hearts to get there because Barney and Robin belong together!”

Also, is it normal to have four people in a group of five friends experience a broken engagement at one point or another? Ted was left at the altar, Barney and Quinn are going to break up, and Marshall and Lily broke up. (Yes, they got back together, but it was still emotionally trying for both characters, so I’m counting it as part of the broken hearts club.) Next season, is Robin going to enter an engagement only to call it off, just so she’ll fit in with her highly dysfunctional friends?

Whatever happens, I’m not sure I’ll be watching. This show has had so many false starts and disappointing endings, with so many temporary love interests for the main characters. I have no problem with temporary love interests as long as they’re entertaining, but few of them, with the exceptions of Victoria and Stella (at least early on) were worth watching. Wake me when The Mother shows up.

Fuck off, Trotsky.

May17

A few days ago, I asked my readers for suggestions about a new blog name. I received several thoughtful, helpful responses from smart people. However, one comment from a first-time poster was the thoughtfulest and helpfulest of all.

This comment came from a user who identified hirself asnorquia:

“You forgot point 3: you’re not funny. So much for dispelling the ‘humorless feminist’ stereotype. Feminism has evidently run its course; just look at the myopic nonsense that was the ‘SlutWalk’. When you’re left playing word games and struggling over semantics you know the movement has run out of steam (as though addressing the problems encountered by one sex wasd synonymous with the broader cause of cause of ‘sexual equality’).

Moreover, stop preaching about ‘diversity’ – how can you extol its virtues when you have barely any experience of it? Frankly, Sex and the City is quite realistic on that point; we keep to our own. Of course, you’re not going to publish this because you can’t deal with criticism. Stalinist.”

norquia is incorrect about the assumption that I play too many word games (I prefer Angry Birds), but everything else is clearly spot-on. In fact, the comment gave me the inspiration I needed for a brand-new blog name.

From now on, I, Lady T, am The Satirical Stalinist. I will write about comedy, media, and literature until 2017 as part of my Five-Year Plan. Any comments posted that challenge me or my revolution will be subject to a Great Purge of all comments.

The rest of you had better watch yourselves, is all I’m saying.

BtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 2.13 – “Surprise”

May15

[Note: I've decided to begin a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday - or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “Surprise”
INCIDENT: Statutory rape
PERPETRATOR: Angel
VICTIM: Buffy

The specifics: Buffy and Angel escaped from the Judge, Drusilla, and Spike. They fled to Angel’s apartment and he looked at her wound. Angel finally told Buffy that he loved her, she told him she loved him back, and they began kissing. He suggested that they stop, she told him to keep kissing her. They fell into bed and had sex. For Buffy, it was her first time.

The mind of the perpetrator: Angel was in love with Buffy. He felt hesitant about sleeping with her, perhaps because she was underage, perhaps because he knew it would be her first time, perhaps because he knew their relationship was a bad idea to begin with, but in the end, he protested very little before having sex with her.

The victim’s perspective: Buffy was in love with Angel, and on the night of her birthday, Angel was almost taken away from her twice. First, Jenny Calendar intervened and arranged for Angel to help disperse the body parts of the Judge across the world. Second, the Judge almost killed her and Angel. Earlier in the day, Buffy talked with Willow about the possibility of sleeping with Angel, saying she was ready to have sex with him. By the end of the day, she did, and she was the one who initiated sex.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

Legally, Buffy and Angel’s first time having sex would definitely be counted as statutory rape. They slept together on her seventeenth birthday and he was two hundred years old.

On the other hand, sex between Buffy and Angel would technically count as necrophilia, since Buffy is having sex with someone who is dead.

Even though Buffy and Angel sleeping together is wrong from a legal perspective, I have a hard time categorizing this incident as rape. Defining it as rape would rob Buffy of her agency in making that choice to sleep with Angel. She knew exactly what she was doing in the heat of the moment. She wasn’t under the influence of anything, she wasn’t hesitating for a second, and she wanted it to happen. She wasn’t thinking about the long-term implications or potential consequences about having sex with Angel, but if every act of spontaneous sex was considered rape, well…I don’t know how to finish that sentence.

Hence, I don’t consider this a violation of consent, despite acknowledging that this would legally be considered statutory rape.

At the same time, Buffy is barely seventeen and Angel is two hundred and forty. Angel having sex with Buffy at her age and her level of experience is…well, it’s a little gross. Don’t mistake me; I get caught up in the sweeping romance of the moment, I feel moved when they profess their love for each other, and Angel is probably more emotionally honest with Buffy here than he is during most of their relationship: “I love you. I try not to, but I can’t stop.” I also give Angel a bit of a pass because they slept together right after they almost died, and were still in danger from the vampires and demon that tried to kill them. (“Exception for impeding death situation,” as Xander would say.)

But it disturbs me how Angel is initially attracted to Buffy because of her seeming innocence, much like he was initially attracted to Drusilla for hers. Even if one version of Angel has a soul and the other doesn’t, “innocent and young” seems to be his type. And that makes me view Angel as a creeping creeper who creeps. It’s no wonder my favorite Angel relationship is his long-term affair with Darla (whom I’m convinced Angel loved far more than he ever loved stupid Buffy, anyway).

New Title and New Name?

May14

When I began blogging a year and a half ago, I called my blog The Funny Feminist because I wanted a catchy name that would be easily Google-able. (I don’t know if that’s technically a word yet, but if it is, all credit goes to me!) I also wanted to emphasize that my blog would focus on comedy. Of all art forms, comedy is my favorite, and writing about comedy from a feminist perspective was right up my alley. I called my blog The Funny Feminist not necessarily to focus on how hilarious I am, but to show that I was going to analyze comedy from a feminist point of view.

I also went by the moniker Lady T instead of using my real name because Lady T is a childhood nickname given to me by my awesome and hilarious aunts, and what better way to honor a history of funny, fabulous women than to use the nickname as my blog name?

Still, I’ve always had a problem with using The Funny Feminist as a blog name. First of all, it doesn’t describe my entire purpose. The blog focus has expanded since I started writing it in November 2010. Comedy is still the primary focus, but I write a lot about genre shows and drama as well.

Secondly, I still feel wrong about calling myself The Funny Feminist, as though I’m the only feminist blogger out there who’s funny. At first, I thought the blog title was subversive, challenging the stereotype of feminists having no sense of humor. And I still think there’s a subversive aspect to that title. But I still hate the The. I hate the implication, even the unintentional one, that I’m the only feminist blogger with a good sense of humor.

That’s why I’m thinking about a new name for the blog. Right now I’m thinking about something like Lady T’s Ladybusiness, putting my blogger name in the title and showing that I’m writing about feminist issues. That title doesn’t emphasize the comedy or media aspect of my blogging, though. So I’m willing to think it over and take suggestions about how to update this blog name. Anyone have any thoughts?

Lady T Recommends Haberdasher Theater’s “The Wizard of Oz”

May13

I began writing this blog a year and a half ago because I’m fascinated with the intersection of life and art, the way life influences art and art influences life. I feel fortunate to have a blogging platform where I can write my ideas and then, with a click of a button, share those ideas with the rest of the world. I hope one day to be a published novelist and creator/head writer of a television sitcom (or several), and blogging about my ideas concerning feminism and the media is a great way to both make a name for myself and publicize all of the ideas I can’t get out of my head.

But I’m not the only one who has big dreams about making a dent in the artistic world and offering my perspective to others. Sometimes people need a little more help to have their voices heard. That’s why I’ve decided to add a weekly feature to the blog called Lady T Recommends, in which I promote a project that needs funding.

The first entry in Lady T Recommends is Haberdasher Theater’s upcoming production of The Wizard of Oz. Here is the link to the Kickstarter page: Help Haberdasher Theatre Present The Wizard of Oz. This production is a modernized take on L. Frank Baum’s classic story that brings an older Dorothy to Noho as she navigates the unforgiving world of New York City:

“Directed by Hollie Elizabeth Klem, this posh metropolitan spin on the cult-classic lands the Kansas born-and-bred Dorothy (Tami Soligan)—a girl with a heart of gold, an artistic spirit too big for her Midwestern ranch, and not much patience for rules—right smack in the middle of Noho, a place that’s surely “no place like home!”

On her cosmopolitan journey, Dorothy navigates much more than the city-that-never-sleeps on her quest to find the Wizard (Matthew Giroveanu), the guy who must know the secret to “making it” here—or anywhere! From Eastside to West, she encounters mother monster witches with shotguns and wood allergies (Christen Madrazo, Taylor Zito, and Jennifer Michaels); an OCD-ridden lioness in need of some serious Prozac (Nicole J. Lippey); an emotionally damaged tin man who still can’t commit (Brian Ogston); and the starving artist, hippy-dippy, scarecrow type your mom prays you never bring back to the ranch (Jeff Foley).”

Why I’m recommending this project: The Wizard of Oz is my favorite movie and I love watching modernized updates on timeless classics. This sounds like an amusing, clever take on the story that can capture the dark side of the land of Oz without ignoring the whimsy, magic, and humor of Baum’s world. New York can also use another take on The Wizard of Oz other than Wicked, and I don’t mean that as a disparaging comment on the popular musical, but that show is super expensive, and Oz fans who don’t want to sell a kidney to get a dose of Dorothy should be able to see this production instead. Finally, I have seen some of Haberdasher Theatre’s previous shows, and I find them to be an innovative, risk-taking company that tries new things and presents new ideas.

Haberdasher Theatre currently has $375 pledged, and they need $2000 by Friday, June 8th. If you are willing and able to spare a little cash, I highly recommend donating to this production. If it goes up, I’ll see it and review it to let you all know how it goes.

“The Vampire Diaries” and a Love That Consumes You

May11

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but The Vampire Diaries has the best love triangle I’ve ever seen that wasn’t penned by William Shakespeare.

In most television shows I’ve watched, I haven’t cared very much for love triangles. They’re often dragged out far too long and far past the point of viewer interest (Jack/Kate/Sawyer on LOST), or they involve resurrecting a years-old relationship when the characters have clearly moved on to new people (Angel/Buffy/Spike on Buffy the Vampire Slayer), or they’re thrown in to stall time (Ted/Robin/Barney on How I Met Your Mother, Quinn/Finn/Rachel AND Finn/Rachel/Jesse on Glee), or one person is so clearly a better choice than the other that the viewer starts to lose respect for the character caught in the middle (Pacey/Joey/Dawson on Dawson’s Creek).

But there’s nothing I don’t love about the triangle on The Vampire Diaries. I love that Elena has unique, different, constantly evolving relationships with Stefan and Damon. I love that, after three years, her inability to choose between the two brothers feels realistic and true to character, not simply a stalling tactic. I love that Stefan and Damon love her both in spite of and because of the fact that she looks exactly like Katherine. I love that Nina Dobrev, Paul Wesley, and Ian Somerhalder manage to create completely different kinds of chemistry whether they’re playing Stefan and Elena, Stefan and Katherine, Damon and Katherine, Damon and Elena, Flashback!Stefan and Damon, and Present!Stefan and Damon. I love that Stefan and Damon take turns playing the roles of the good brother and bad brother, further complicating Elena’s feelings and their relationship with each other. I love that the relationship between Stefan and Damon is as important, if not more important, than their feelings for Elena, and that they know deep down that they would be completely lost without each other, but are too messed up and stubborn to admit it. I love that this fan-made music video exists:


I love so many things about this complicated, messed-up triangle on The Vampire Diaries, and the articles about tonight’s season finale all indicated that Elena would finally choose between the Salvatore brothers – not once and for all, but for now. Even as a Stefan/Elena fan, I was preparing myself for her to (temporarily) choose Damon. I thought that Elena, missing stability and normalcy and aching for a time where her life was simpler, would choose the brother who had become her support system for the past season, whom she could rely on when Stefan was unpredictable and struggling with addiction.

Instead, Elena chose Stefan.

I should be satisfied with this result. Even though I can’t get enough of this never-ending triangle, I’ve always preferred Elena/Stefan to Elena/Damon, for obvious reasons; if I’m going to choose between a brother who says, “I’ll step back and encourage Elena to make her own decisions, regardless of whether or not I agree with her” and a brother who says, “I MUST PROTECT ELENA AT ALL COSTS especially because her ideas are sometimes stupid!,” I’m going with the brother who supports Elena’s choices. And yet, the end of this episode left me feeling unsettled and wary about the future of the Stefan/Elena/Damon triangle.

That unsettling feeling is largely due to the retcon of Damon having met Elena before Stefan did.

According to the season finale, Damon met Elena on that fateful night that killed her parents and almost killed her. He initially mistook her for Katherine, had a conversation with her, informed her that she was looking for a “love that would consume her,” and then compelled her to forget said conversation. A few hours later, Elena’s parents died and Stefan rescued Elena.

Earlier in the episode, Elena told Matt that she feels like Damon “consumes her” whenever she’s with him. When she talked to Damon on the phone, she told him that she was choosing Stefan, and that “maybe if I had met you first, things would be different.”

Then Elena was in a second car crash and suffered a hemorrhage because she insisted that Stefan rescue Matt before rescuing her. Meredith gave her vampire blood to save her life, and now Elena is awake, and will spend the first episode of season four in transition before becoming a vampire.

Elena becoming a vampire has very many implications for her character and for The Vampire Diaries as a whole, but for the purpose of this post, I want to focus on just one implication: the fact that she will now remember meeting Damon before she met Stefan.

And I don’t know how I feel about that.

First of all, I’m not sure how to interpret the writers’ intentions. I don’t know if we’re supposed to look at this retroactive continuity as foreshadowing or tragedy. Is this revelation about the first meeting of Damon and Elena meant to be a sign of a future true love relationship between the two? Or is it meant to be a sign of the ongoing tragedy that is the life of Damon Salvatore, where every woman he loves will always prefer his brother? Or will the result fall somewhere in between those two ideas?

Secondly, and more importantly, I have serious issues with the idea that Elena finds herself “consumed” by Damon. I have problems with the idea of “consuming” love in general – that overwhelming passion beyond the point of reason is a romantic ideal, or that becoming completely absorbed in another person is a sign of true love.

I have problems with that idea because I think it’s unhealthy; the last thing we should strive for is a Bella/Edward situation where they’re obsessed with each other to the point of neglecting themselves as individuals. But I also have problems with the “consuming love” idea because “consuming love” isn’t what I witnessed between Elena and Damon this past season.

What I saw transpire between Elena and Damon wasn’t a consuming passionate love – if anything, they both were consumed with thoughts of bringing Stefan back to the side of good. No, what I saw between Elena and Damon was a foundation of friendship and support. Elena, having lost five parental figures and the first man she truly loved, sought comfort in her first love’s brother, who proved to be reliable and supportive when she badly needed him. She didn’t fall for Damon because he was the bad boy who tempted her with consuming love. She fell for him because he was her friend.

Through Rose’s monologue in “Heart of Darkness” and Elena’s conversation with Matt in “The Departed,” I’m meant to believe that Stefan’s love is pure and Damon’s love is challenging, that Elena loves Stefan because he made her believe in life, and she has feelings for Damon because she feels “consumed” by him. But the story I watched for the past three years was much more complicated. In the story I watched, Stefan and Damon were assigned the “pure love” and “challenging love” roles in the very beginning, but constantly traded roles whenever Damon showed his good side and Stefan revealed more of his unsavory past. The more we learned about Damon and Stefan, the more the lines blurred between the “good brother” and “bad brother.”

I’m not sure what the writers intend for the love triangle in season four, but I hope they continue to explore the complications in the Stefan/Elena/Damon story instead of placing the brothers in the “pure love” and “consuming love” boxes. Limiting Stefan and Damon to their original roles would un-complicate this twisted, beautiful triangle, and do a disservice to both men and to Elena.

Of course, if this show were not on the WB and aiming for a teen audience, Elena wouldn’t have to choose between the Salvatores at all, and she’d be able to commit to both brothers in a polyamorous relationship. But because this is the WB, I suspect that Elena will have to choose. I can only hope that the choice will eventually involve Katherine coming back to make everything more complicated, because the biggest flaw in season three was too little Katherine Pierce.

Maybe the writers have a point with this “love that consumes you” theory, because I certainly feel consumed by my love for The Vampire Diaries.