I think disability cannot be defined without referencing the idea of normal ability. In every definition of disability there is a mention of a flaw in a human’s physical, mental, or emotional condition. That, in and of itself, indirectly points out the notion that their normal ability is impaired. I think disability and stigma are related because they both point out physical defects in a human.
I don’t really think that fatness should be considered a ‘disability’. People make life decisions regarding what they eat and how much they exercise. Obesity is extremely preventable. I do not consider obesity a disability because people choose to be obese. People also choose to work against obesity and make themselves healthy. I think institutions are created with regard to normal ability by buildings things such a steep staircases for high schools and other levels of schooling, and some certain buildings do not have ramps that are wheelchair accessible.
I do not think it is possible to deconstruct socially constructed notions of disability. I think this is because human society is too judgmental. Even if we took away all the ramps, disability parking spots, brail signs, etc. we would still overanalyze a person to find their disability. If humans appear physically different or act physically different, a lot of us are quick to assume they have a disability and thus feel like they must be treated differently.
Disability theory and gender are related because we see that women are technically disabled because a lot of women are kept in the house to take care of their children and do not have the ‘normal ability’ to work. Descriptions of women as frail make it seem as if they have a disability in comparison to men who have normal abilities and are strong. It once again places women in the ‘subservient’ role in society.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
White Privilege
I think ‘white’ still holds a lot of power in society today. There are still cases in America where people of other races are arrested or found guilty of crimes more frequently than that of white people. I think ‘white’ was first used as a racial category probably as far back as the 16th or 17th century or even earlier. As long as there have been slaves and people of color around, the ‘white’ racial category has been around.
I think ‘white’ implies higher social status. While there have been movements – especially with Obama becoming the first African American President – towards other races receiving higher social status, white men and women still dominate the government. It took us this long to have an African American president, and even still a lot of members in Obama’s party are white men. Unfortunately, as a whole, society still sees white people as being the most powerful.
I think there is a such thing as white culture, but no one really pays attention to it because it has been the norm for hundreds of years. Things associated with being ‘American’ are sometimes associated with white culture, even though other races are most definitely ‘American’. I think it is hard to establish what would define ‘white culture’ because most of it is, like I said, associated with being an American, and also because there are many different branches that form what it is to be Caucasian. For example, a family might be Italian or Irish. If they are Italian they are frequently associated with loving a good wine, or eating things such as pasta or other traditional Italian dishes. If a family is Irish, they might be known to love alcohol, eat things like corn beef and cabbage, etc. Even if it is not true, a lot of people stereotype these nationalities.
I do not think that white can be used as a group name without invoking connotations of white supremacy. As long as people are still actively aware of the negative history associated with African Americans (the years in which they were enslaved), white supremacy will always be a term that is prevalent. Even as we try to move away from white supremacy, there are still institutions that remind us daily of its existence. I think whiteness and white supremacy are definitely linked. You could be white, working as a janitor, and have tons of best friends that are of a different race, and you would probably still be seen as being above certain races that hold the same job.
I think ‘white’ implies higher social status. While there have been movements – especially with Obama becoming the first African American President – towards other races receiving higher social status, white men and women still dominate the government. It took us this long to have an African American president, and even still a lot of members in Obama’s party are white men. Unfortunately, as a whole, society still sees white people as being the most powerful.
I think there is a such thing as white culture, but no one really pays attention to it because it has been the norm for hundreds of years. Things associated with being ‘American’ are sometimes associated with white culture, even though other races are most definitely ‘American’. I think it is hard to establish what would define ‘white culture’ because most of it is, like I said, associated with being an American, and also because there are many different branches that form what it is to be Caucasian. For example, a family might be Italian or Irish. If they are Italian they are frequently associated with loving a good wine, or eating things such as pasta or other traditional Italian dishes. If a family is Irish, they might be known to love alcohol, eat things like corn beef and cabbage, etc. Even if it is not true, a lot of people stereotype these nationalities.
I do not think that white can be used as a group name without invoking connotations of white supremacy. As long as people are still actively aware of the negative history associated with African Americans (the years in which they were enslaved), white supremacy will always be a term that is prevalent. Even as we try to move away from white supremacy, there are still institutions that remind us daily of its existence. I think whiteness and white supremacy are definitely linked. You could be white, working as a janitor, and have tons of best friends that are of a different race, and you would probably still be seen as being above certain races that hold the same job.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Romance and Relationships
I think my family reflects the normative U.S. family somewhat. Both of my parents work, but they value each other’s opinions and decisions about what to do within the household and outside of the household, equally. I think social institutions reinforce power relations in the family by issuing certain statements about the roles of women and men within the family that paints a picture and expectation of male dominance over the female. I think a lot of things in society need to be rewritten to express equality for both genders.
I think dating and romance scripts are taught through the media, mostly. I mean certainly young males and females hear about their parents experiences with dating, but considering that was a different generation, I think that they pick up most of their tips from TV shows, which is not always the best thing. I think these scripts teach us about the normative U.S. family by showing that through dating and romance, the initial signs of dominance of one sex over the other start to occur. Dating scripts hold up gender norms by showing what a female is supposed to do in a situation as opposed to what a male is supposed to do, and their roles are completely opposite of each other.
In my home, both of my parents clean equally now days. However this development was only recent. Before my mom got a job, she would clean the house every day and cook every day. She still cleans and cooks frequently, but now my dad tries to clean more to help her out. My mother still cooks, however. I am pretty lazy when it comes to chores, but I try and help my mom out with dinner and cleaning up after the dishes almost every day because I feel badly that she has to work all day and then come home and cook and clean.
Obviously, looking at what I just wrote, this definitely reflects typical social norms. I think that women’s and men’s different ways of communicating aren’t as stereotypical as mentioned in the module. My dad can be more talkative than all the women in our family put together, and we interrupt him frequently when he talks. He also tends to end sentence in a question formality. I don’t know if it’s because three women influenced him, or what. I think women’s and men’s different ways of communicating affect relationships a lot. I think women try too hard to gain a man’s attention and keep it. I wonder how different things would be if women initiated conversations in the same way men do.
I think dating and romance scripts are taught through the media, mostly. I mean certainly young males and females hear about their parents experiences with dating, but considering that was a different generation, I think that they pick up most of their tips from TV shows, which is not always the best thing. I think these scripts teach us about the normative U.S. family by showing that through dating and romance, the initial signs of dominance of one sex over the other start to occur. Dating scripts hold up gender norms by showing what a female is supposed to do in a situation as opposed to what a male is supposed to do, and their roles are completely opposite of each other.
In my home, both of my parents clean equally now days. However this development was only recent. Before my mom got a job, she would clean the house every day and cook every day. She still cleans and cooks frequently, but now my dad tries to clean more to help her out. My mother still cooks, however. I am pretty lazy when it comes to chores, but I try and help my mom out with dinner and cleaning up after the dishes almost every day because I feel badly that she has to work all day and then come home and cook and clean.
Obviously, looking at what I just wrote, this definitely reflects typical social norms. I think that women’s and men’s different ways of communicating aren’t as stereotypical as mentioned in the module. My dad can be more talkative than all the women in our family put together, and we interrupt him frequently when he talks. He also tends to end sentence in a question formality. I don’t know if it’s because three women influenced him, or what. I think women’s and men’s different ways of communicating affect relationships a lot. I think women try too hard to gain a man’s attention and keep it. I wonder how different things would be if women initiated conversations in the same way men do.
Theorizing Privilege
Prejudice affects my life I many ways. Personally, because I am a bit heavier than most girls, I have experienced that it is harder to easily make friends with others. Also, I do tend to dish out prejudice as well. If I see someone wearing a really short skirt, I will tend to prejudge them as being slutty. I see ideologies show up even at places such as JMU. A lot more of the English and creative writing courses that I have taken here have been taught by women. A lot more of the business courses I have taken have been taught by men. I think this also causes gender inequality. I feel that (though I do not know for certain) teachers in business courses get paid more than teachers in English courses.
I think hate crimes maintain systems of inequality by reinforcing aspects of racism. There are definitely more African Americans killed in hate crimes than Caucasians. Also hate crimes where an employer doesn’t hire a man because he’s black or white or asian encourages others to hold similar situations that bars opportunities for a specific race.
Some images of hate crimes that I can recall mostly revolved around gay males at my high school. These males were picked on and shunned in the boys’ locker rooms because the straight males didn’t want the gay males to ‘look at them’ in a certain way. Honestly, the situation infuriated me. I don’t see any point in shunning someone for being homosexual. If they aren’t purposely bothering you, then you have no reason to be so hostile to them.
I think hate crimes maintain systems of inequality by reinforcing aspects of racism. There are definitely more African Americans killed in hate crimes than Caucasians. Also hate crimes where an employer doesn’t hire a man because he’s black or white or asian encourages others to hold similar situations that bars opportunities for a specific race.
Some images of hate crimes that I can recall mostly revolved around gay males at my high school. These males were picked on and shunned in the boys’ locker rooms because the straight males didn’t want the gay males to ‘look at them’ in a certain way. Honestly, the situation infuriated me. I don’t see any point in shunning someone for being homosexual. If they aren’t purposely bothering you, then you have no reason to be so hostile to them.
Inscribing Gender on the Body
In beauty norms, power relations are reflected because women are expected to keep higher self-maintenance and hygiene than men. Also, it is more unacceptable for women to be overweight than it is for men. Beauty norms affect women more directly by encouraging women to go with the flow in terms of things such as fashion, make-up, and plastic surgery. I think that it affects men to some extent, but not nearly as much as women.
Beauty norms have affected me in several ways. I buy make-up constantly and it always takes me close to an hour to get myself ready to go out for the day. Also, I am currently trying to lose weight so that I can appear better physically. There are definitely things I like about my body. I like my eyes and my legs, but I think it will still be a long time until I can almost like everything about myself.
The connections of beauty standards to women’s health mostly have to do with people who are anorexic or bulimic, or even people that are overweight. When society pressures women to be a certain way, they might starve themselves, throw up their meals, or do the opposite and binge eat because food makes them feel good about themselves. Women can resist the beauty ideal by being comfortable with who they are and making fashion statements that instead of expressing society’s wants, express their own wants. Phallocentrism controls men’s bodies in the sense that it makes them feel like they have to practice being manly enough. It reinforces the idea that men are supposed to have hard attitudes and not express emotions.
Beauty norms have affected me in several ways. I buy make-up constantly and it always takes me close to an hour to get myself ready to go out for the day. Also, I am currently trying to lose weight so that I can appear better physically. There are definitely things I like about my body. I like my eyes and my legs, but I think it will still be a long time until I can almost like everything about myself.
The connections of beauty standards to women’s health mostly have to do with people who are anorexic or bulimic, or even people that are overweight. When society pressures women to be a certain way, they might starve themselves, throw up their meals, or do the opposite and binge eat because food makes them feel good about themselves. Women can resist the beauty ideal by being comfortable with who they are and making fashion statements that instead of expressing society’s wants, express their own wants. Phallocentrism controls men’s bodies in the sense that it makes them feel like they have to practice being manly enough. It reinforces the idea that men are supposed to have hard attitudes and not express emotions.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Second Wave Feminism
Since we are able to stray from the ‘blog prompts’ I thought I would do that for once, just to address some specific points in the last module that I thought were pertinent.
In the second module, we learned that racism and discrimination in general were still, at first, prevalent within the second wave of feminism. Feminists did not want to be associated with lesbians because they felt that lesbians had too many shared qualities with that of men, who they were trying to break away from.
I think that this was hypocritical as well. With such a statement being made, it is all too evident that the second wave of feminism was too caught up in stereotypes at the beginning. To discriminate against African American women and lesbians defeats the whole purpose of accepting all women for the women’s movement.
Although Sojourner Truth made her speech, “Ain’t I a woman?” in 1851, her concepts and clarity about what defines who a woman is still relate a great deal to the later discriminations in the second wave of feminism. Lesbians are still women. African Americans are still women. They might have different colored skin or different sexuality preferences, but they are both still women and deserve their rights. All races and all different sexual orientations deserve rights.
In 1968, however, as stated in the module, this was changed when a meeting of women was held in Chicago to put an end to segregation and discrimination, which is a major improvement and change in the second wave of feminism.
I feel that consciousness Raising Groups are an extremely important part of the second wave of feminism, and I honestly don’t think they have completely died out today. I just think they aren’t as publicized as they used to be. I certainly have not heard of consciousness raising groups until I listened to this module lecture, and I feel as though if I were to hear of one being held in my community it would probably interest me immensely.
Keeping in mind of the time period in which the Feminist Mystique was produced, I think that it held a lot of truth to it. While there was not enough evidence collected by Betty Fridan for her results (100 something surveys doesn’t exactly reflect the entire population’s opinion), I think for the most part that – despite the lack of evidence – Fridan had the right idea about women’s feelings towards domesticity. Also, in that 1950’s and 60’s the media pretty much created, as stated in the lecture, a false image of how women should be. A lot of women were afraid that by veering from the course of domesticity, they would be disrespecting several parties (ie: their husbands, the media, maybe their parents, and even friends).
I think a Manifesto has its pros and cons. It is definitely a good way to highlight the changes that women want brought-about in society. It is not, however, the best idea to list forceful demands and be extremely confrontational. Sometimes confrontation ends up making the problem worse rather than better. If women approach changing policies with confrontation, then policy makers might be disinclined to take an interest in their demands. If they approach policy changes in a stern manner, but with a willingness to comprise on certain policies, I think that women can get a better response out of policy makers.
In the second module, we learned that racism and discrimination in general were still, at first, prevalent within the second wave of feminism. Feminists did not want to be associated with lesbians because they felt that lesbians had too many shared qualities with that of men, who they were trying to break away from.
I think that this was hypocritical as well. With such a statement being made, it is all too evident that the second wave of feminism was too caught up in stereotypes at the beginning. To discriminate against African American women and lesbians defeats the whole purpose of accepting all women for the women’s movement.
Although Sojourner Truth made her speech, “Ain’t I a woman?” in 1851, her concepts and clarity about what defines who a woman is still relate a great deal to the later discriminations in the second wave of feminism. Lesbians are still women. African Americans are still women. They might have different colored skin or different sexuality preferences, but they are both still women and deserve their rights. All races and all different sexual orientations deserve rights.
In 1968, however, as stated in the module, this was changed when a meeting of women was held in Chicago to put an end to segregation and discrimination, which is a major improvement and change in the second wave of feminism.
I feel that consciousness Raising Groups are an extremely important part of the second wave of feminism, and I honestly don’t think they have completely died out today. I just think they aren’t as publicized as they used to be. I certainly have not heard of consciousness raising groups until I listened to this module lecture, and I feel as though if I were to hear of one being held in my community it would probably interest me immensely.
Keeping in mind of the time period in which the Feminist Mystique was produced, I think that it held a lot of truth to it. While there was not enough evidence collected by Betty Fridan for her results (100 something surveys doesn’t exactly reflect the entire population’s opinion), I think for the most part that – despite the lack of evidence – Fridan had the right idea about women’s feelings towards domesticity. Also, in that 1950’s and 60’s the media pretty much created, as stated in the lecture, a false image of how women should be. A lot of women were afraid that by veering from the course of domesticity, they would be disrespecting several parties (ie: their husbands, the media, maybe their parents, and even friends).
I think a Manifesto has its pros and cons. It is definitely a good way to highlight the changes that women want brought-about in society. It is not, however, the best idea to list forceful demands and be extremely confrontational. Sometimes confrontation ends up making the problem worse rather than better. If women approach changing policies with confrontation, then policy makers might be disinclined to take an interest in their demands. If they approach policy changes in a stern manner, but with a willingness to comprise on certain policies, I think that women can get a better response out of policy makers.
Feminism in Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Just as I did with the last round of blog posts, I want to once again address feminist aspects in yet another TV series.
This time around I just wanted to point out the strong feminist aspects in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A short snipped from Wikipedia:
Joss Whedon (the creator of 'Buffy')identifies himself as a feminist, and feminist themes are common in his work. For his part, Whedon credits his mother, Lee Stearns, as the inspiration for his feminist worldview. When Roseanne Barr asked him how he could write so well for women, he replied, "If you met my mom, you wouldn't ask."
Joss's feminist influences are seen throughout the entire 'Buffy' series. He once stated in an interview that he wrote 'Buffy' with the idea of combating the stereotypical 'blonde girl as a damsel in distress in horror films that is either killed or saved by a man'. He certainly achieved this goal. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a series about a young blonde girl who has the destiny to combat the forces of evil.
I must now take a short moment to apologize to everyone reading this post -- I forgot to warn you all that I am a ridiculously HUGE Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. I have all 7 seasons on DVD, t-shirts, the BTVS high-school year book from season 3, over 20 BTVS paper back novels, The entire first season on VHS as well, the BTVS video game 'chaos bleeds', A Buffy barbie doll, and several other things. Haha. Now that I've scared everyone away, I'll continue.
A lot of people credit 'Buffy' with opening up opportunities for women on TV as portraying strong, female independent characters. In the series, Buffy Summers herself isn't exactly the brightest crayon in the box (though her SAT scores in season 3 would suggest otherwise). I think Joss chose this quality for Buffy with a specific purpose in mind. A lot of Buffy's intellect isn't displayed in her school work but rather her most intelligent decisions come about when she is trying to save the world or her friends and family. Joss uses Buffy's emotions as a weapon (both figuratively and literally) as a means of 'solving the puzzle' in Buffy's battles.
Contrary to what a lot of anti-feminists proclaim, emotions - in this case - provide strength rather than weakness.
Honestly, I grew up with this series. I had been watching it from a young age (with a lot of that being without my mother's knowledge) and I think it definitely shaped a lot of my attitudes and feelings about women empowerment. 'Buffy' definitely taught me the importance of staying true to yourself and to make decisions based on how I want to make them.
I think one of my all-time favorite episodes that impacted me the most was in Season 5, episode 12 of the series.
In it, The Watchers' Council comes to Sunnydale to tell Buffy what they know about Glory, on condition that she proves herself worthy. She refuses to go through their tests, and they tell her Glory is a god. (Summary from Wikipedia)
The most relevant scenes in the episode were probably as followed (I know that this post is ridiculously long, but I PROMISE it is relevant):
1. In Buffy's history class, the teacher is discussing how Rasputin was considered nearly impossible to kill. Buffy challenges the professor to look at history from another angle, but he shoots her ideas down with scathing criticism and sarcasm, embarrassing her in front of the class. That night, Buffy complains about class to a vampire she's fighting until she is thrown off balance. Spike suddenly appears, flying over a tombstone to tackle and stake the vampire. He expects gratitude, but Buffy accuses him of getting in her way. The two then verbally attack each other.
My response: Buffy attempts to share new insights on an old perspective, and is shot down. I think she really shows that it is important to share your beliefs even if others will think they are ridiculous, because in reality there are some who agree with your beliefs and were too shy or scared to say them themselves.
Also an interesting tidbit is this part about Buffy shooting down Spike's chivalry. She shows that she is extremely independent and doesn't need a man's help, undead or not.
2. Buffy: No review. No interrogation. No questions you know I can't answer. No hoops. No jumps. (Nigel is about to speak.) No interruptions. See, I've had a lot of people talking at me in the last few days. Everyone just lining up to tell me how unimportant I am. And I've finally figured out why. Power. I have it. They don't. This bothers them. Glory came to my home today.
Giles: Buffy are you all—
Buffy: Just to talk. She told me I'm a bug, I'm a flea, she could squash me in a second. Only she didn't. She came into my home, and we talked. We had what in her warped brain probably passes for a civilized conversation. Why? Because she needs something from me. Because I have power over her. You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives, some semblance of meaning.
Buffy: You're Watchers. Without a Slayer... you're pretty much just watching Masterpiece Theater. You can't stop Glory. You can't do anything with the information you have, except maybe publish it in the Everyone Thinks We're Insanos Home Journal. So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory.
Source: http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/checkpoint/checkpointquotes.shtml#ixzz0Ji0VUpPr&D
Relevance: This scene in this episode pretty much blew me away. Just to point out a few key things -- Glory was the 'big evil' in season 5 that Buffy had to defeat. Buffy had knowledge about something that Glory wanted. Giles was Buffy's watcher (a watcher is someone who trains slayers) until he was fired in season 3, ironically he was fired in an episode where Buffy lost her power temporarily. Nigel is a member of the Watcher's Council in England (this is the headquarters of watchers who work on supernatural research and attempt to help the Slayer -- though again, ironically, she hasn't been associated with them (unofficially) since Season 3 in the episode 'Helpless') .
I think this is an extremely important scene in the episode, if not in the series. This situation holds true in all formats globally. Anyone who has power has been ridiculed for that power. People are TERRIFIED of others that have power. They will go to great length to tear down anyone with power. We saw this with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Both of these women had TREMENDOUS power. As a result, they were ridiculed 24/7 because people were afraid of their power.
"You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives, some semblance of meaning."
Again we see this with the media and other aspects of life. Why do we watch the news? So that we can hear other people's opinions about other people. Without those powerful people, the media has nothing to talk about.
Even in the work force, women are constantly trying to prove that they are 'good enough to be let in' to something. That's not to say that men don't strive for the same thing, but for a while women have had it harder. Without employees, businesses don't run effectively.
"So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory."
Just another example of the independent and strong characteristics of Buffy Summers. She is truly a strong embodiment of feminism.
Although I would love to talk more about BTVS, I will save more for later posts!
This time around I just wanted to point out the strong feminist aspects in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A short snipped from Wikipedia:
Joss Whedon (the creator of 'Buffy')identifies himself as a feminist, and feminist themes are common in his work. For his part, Whedon credits his mother, Lee Stearns, as the inspiration for his feminist worldview. When Roseanne Barr asked him how he could write so well for women, he replied, "If you met my mom, you wouldn't ask."
Joss's feminist influences are seen throughout the entire 'Buffy' series. He once stated in an interview that he wrote 'Buffy' with the idea of combating the stereotypical 'blonde girl as a damsel in distress in horror films that is either killed or saved by a man'. He certainly achieved this goal. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a series about a young blonde girl who has the destiny to combat the forces of evil.
I must now take a short moment to apologize to everyone reading this post -- I forgot to warn you all that I am a ridiculously HUGE Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. I have all 7 seasons on DVD, t-shirts, the BTVS high-school year book from season 3, over 20 BTVS paper back novels, The entire first season on VHS as well, the BTVS video game 'chaos bleeds', A Buffy barbie doll, and several other things. Haha. Now that I've scared everyone away, I'll continue.
A lot of people credit 'Buffy' with opening up opportunities for women on TV as portraying strong, female independent characters. In the series, Buffy Summers herself isn't exactly the brightest crayon in the box (though her SAT scores in season 3 would suggest otherwise). I think Joss chose this quality for Buffy with a specific purpose in mind. A lot of Buffy's intellect isn't displayed in her school work but rather her most intelligent decisions come about when she is trying to save the world or her friends and family. Joss uses Buffy's emotions as a weapon (both figuratively and literally) as a means of 'solving the puzzle' in Buffy's battles.
Contrary to what a lot of anti-feminists proclaim, emotions - in this case - provide strength rather than weakness.
Honestly, I grew up with this series. I had been watching it from a young age (with a lot of that being without my mother's knowledge) and I think it definitely shaped a lot of my attitudes and feelings about women empowerment. 'Buffy' definitely taught me the importance of staying true to yourself and to make decisions based on how I want to make them.
I think one of my all-time favorite episodes that impacted me the most was in Season 5, episode 12 of the series.
In it, The Watchers' Council comes to Sunnydale to tell Buffy what they know about Glory, on condition that she proves herself worthy. She refuses to go through their tests, and they tell her Glory is a god. (Summary from Wikipedia)
The most relevant scenes in the episode were probably as followed (I know that this post is ridiculously long, but I PROMISE it is relevant):
1. In Buffy's history class, the teacher is discussing how Rasputin was considered nearly impossible to kill. Buffy challenges the professor to look at history from another angle, but he shoots her ideas down with scathing criticism and sarcasm, embarrassing her in front of the class. That night, Buffy complains about class to a vampire she's fighting until she is thrown off balance. Spike suddenly appears, flying over a tombstone to tackle and stake the vampire. He expects gratitude, but Buffy accuses him of getting in her way. The two then verbally attack each other.
My response: Buffy attempts to share new insights on an old perspective, and is shot down. I think she really shows that it is important to share your beliefs even if others will think they are ridiculous, because in reality there are some who agree with your beliefs and were too shy or scared to say them themselves.
Also an interesting tidbit is this part about Buffy shooting down Spike's chivalry. She shows that she is extremely independent and doesn't need a man's help, undead or not.
2. Buffy: No review. No interrogation. No questions you know I can't answer. No hoops. No jumps. (Nigel is about to speak.) No interruptions. See, I've had a lot of people talking at me in the last few days. Everyone just lining up to tell me how unimportant I am. And I've finally figured out why. Power. I have it. They don't. This bothers them. Glory came to my home today.
Giles: Buffy are you all—
Buffy: Just to talk. She told me I'm a bug, I'm a flea, she could squash me in a second. Only she didn't. She came into my home, and we talked. We had what in her warped brain probably passes for a civilized conversation. Why? Because she needs something from me. Because I have power over her. You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives, some semblance of meaning.
Buffy: You're Watchers. Without a Slayer... you're pretty much just watching Masterpiece Theater. You can't stop Glory. You can't do anything with the information you have, except maybe publish it in the Everyone Thinks We're Insanos Home Journal. So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory.
Source: http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/checkpoint/checkpointquotes.shtml#ixzz0Ji0VUpPr&D
Relevance: This scene in this episode pretty much blew me away. Just to point out a few key things -- Glory was the 'big evil' in season 5 that Buffy had to defeat. Buffy had knowledge about something that Glory wanted. Giles was Buffy's watcher (a watcher is someone who trains slayers) until he was fired in season 3, ironically he was fired in an episode where Buffy lost her power temporarily. Nigel is a member of the Watcher's Council in England (this is the headquarters of watchers who work on supernatural research and attempt to help the Slayer -- though again, ironically, she hasn't been associated with them (unofficially) since Season 3 in the episode 'Helpless') .
I think this is an extremely important scene in the episode, if not in the series. This situation holds true in all formats globally. Anyone who has power has been ridiculed for that power. People are TERRIFIED of others that have power. They will go to great length to tear down anyone with power. We saw this with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Both of these women had TREMENDOUS power. As a result, they were ridiculed 24/7 because people were afraid of their power.
"You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives, some semblance of meaning."
Again we see this with the media and other aspects of life. Why do we watch the news? So that we can hear other people's opinions about other people. Without those powerful people, the media has nothing to talk about.
Even in the work force, women are constantly trying to prove that they are 'good enough to be let in' to something. That's not to say that men don't strive for the same thing, but for a while women have had it harder. Without employees, businesses don't run effectively.
"So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory."
Just another example of the independent and strong characteristics of Buffy Summers. She is truly a strong embodiment of feminism.
Although I would love to talk more about BTVS, I will save more for later posts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)