I'm sorry, and I hope your condition continues improving at as fast a pace as possible. /hugs
Thanks hon! this feels like it's a "live with it" sort of thing rather than a "going away anytime soon" deal, but hugs always help.
What I find unfortunate, though, is that they chose Kendra, i.e. a black woman, to play the perfectly obedient one who follows orders without questioning them... the way it played out is just so unfortunate.
THIS. Some fans do read Kendra's death as the show plays it, a result of her not being as good, as creative or intuitive a Slayer. Like I said earlier today, she was under a THRALL. So was Buffy when the Master killed her, and when Dracula bit her. And supposedly she's roofied in the spacefrak in the comics - but, still somehow entirely responsible for her actions? People have been calling Joss out on this shit, and in 15+ years he still doesn't seem to get it. So I have a real problem with the "straight reading" of the situation, aside from the problematic nature, it's neither fair to Kendra nor entirely accurate. Worse, the show kills both women of color - Kendra and Jenny - in S2.
BTW - am I the only person who was uncomfortable with the imagery of "black girl descends from white girl', because I tend to read Kendra & Faith as symbolic childe/grandchilde to Buffy as well as "sister slayers". B/c we know that in fact all humans descend from an African female ancestor. Or am I reading too much into their attempt to add diversity and show that Slayers are not just suburban white girls?
Where do I sign up for the support group?
I'll ask snowpuppies; we may have to create one. I did today sign up for a femmeslash fic awards community I never realized existed.
with Buffy going all "omg we can't be together because I am not gay!!!"? It's such a waste, since early on in the series Buffy's Slayer status has been equated with queerness (the Becoming Part 2 scenes, "Slayer pride parade"). I guess I get that they were reluctant to write their heroine as explicitly queer back in the 90s, and also that they were reluctant to introduce a queer side to her later on in the comics, after she'd already become an icon, but still. /pouts
THIS! I saw the same thing on a S2 episode of Crossing Jordan; Jordan and a lesbian talk show host have a powerful emotional and possibly physical connection (no sex or even a kiss, more a palpable feeling) and the actresses are so, so good at implying the need and want that I wanted to cry. And then Jordan says "But I'm not gay." ARRGGGHHHH! THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING POINT! We're all bi-emotional in some way. Can we DROP the fucking labels already? Oh and the comics? that's just to please the fanboys who think pretty chicks who have sex together is hot as long as at least one of them isn't a "real lesbian." And that sucks because Satsu is an interesting character. (Did you see Sarah's reaction to Buffy sleeping with a girl at the 2008 paleyfest when someone told her for the first time there? Cute.) Re: the queer metaphors, "in the closet" that's in the show all the way back to WTTH but it first becomes really explicit, played comedically, in The Witch, when Buffy under a spell blurts out "vampires" and Joyce says "What?" So it's already there in the show's DNA, but once again it's something the writers use as convenient without always thinking the implications through.
Also the portrayal of the bake sale Wicca group rubbed me the wrong way. Kind of condescending.
I took tarot lessons from a wiccan high priestess in college; at the time it was more empowering than therapy: reading feminist theology, modern paganism, the very notion of the Divine as something female? Powerful stuff in a culture in which "God" is always male, and female is sinful, other, a temptation, dirty etc. OTOH, I did laugh at the "spice rack" joke because there was an iota of truth to it. But it feels like the sort of exceptionalism that the show claims to question with Chosen and the Slayer spell but can't help support anyway. In truth, that scene in Hush is meant to mirror Cordy and the Cordettes mocking Willow in WTTH when buffy meets her; so I'm sure they weren't thinking the implications through, again.
Re: 1/several...
Date: 2013-06-21 12:55 am (UTC)Thanks hon! this feels like it's a "live with it" sort of thing rather than a "going away anytime soon" deal, but hugs always help.
What I find unfortunate, though, is that they chose Kendra, i.e. a black woman, to play the perfectly obedient one who follows orders without questioning them... the way it played out is just so unfortunate.
THIS. Some fans do read Kendra's death as the show plays it, a result of her not being as good, as creative or intuitive a Slayer. Like I said earlier today, she was under a THRALL. So was Buffy when the Master killed her, and when Dracula bit her. And supposedly she's roofied in the spacefrak in the comics - but, still somehow entirely responsible for her actions? People have been calling Joss out on this shit, and in 15+ years he still doesn't seem to get it. So I have a real problem with the "straight reading" of the situation, aside from the problematic nature, it's neither fair to Kendra nor entirely accurate. Worse, the show kills both women of color - Kendra and Jenny - in S2.
BTW - am I the only person who was uncomfortable with the imagery of "black girl descends from white girl', because I tend to read Kendra & Faith as symbolic childe/grandchilde to Buffy as well as "sister slayers". B/c we know that in fact all humans descend from an African female ancestor. Or am I reading too much into their attempt to add diversity and show that Slayers are not just suburban white girls?
Where do I sign up for the support group?
I'll ask
with Buffy going all "omg we can't be together because I am not gay!!!"? It's such a waste, since early on in the series Buffy's Slayer status has been equated with queerness (the Becoming Part 2 scenes, "Slayer pride parade"). I guess I get that they were reluctant to write their heroine as explicitly queer back in the 90s, and also that they were reluctant to introduce a queer side to her later on in the comics, after she'd already become an icon, but still. /pouts
THIS! I saw the same thing on a S2 episode of Crossing Jordan; Jordan and a lesbian talk show host have a powerful emotional and possibly physical connection (no sex or even a kiss, more a palpable feeling) and the actresses are so, so good at implying the need and want that I wanted to cry. And then Jordan says "But I'm not gay." ARRGGGHHHH! THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING POINT! We're all bi-emotional in some way. Can we DROP the fucking labels already? Oh and the comics? that's just to please the fanboys who think pretty chicks who have sex together is hot as long as at least one of them isn't a "real lesbian." And that sucks because Satsu is an interesting character. (Did you see Sarah's reaction to Buffy sleeping with a girl at the 2008 paleyfest when someone told her for the first time there? Cute.) Re: the queer metaphors, "in the closet" that's in the show all the way back to WTTH but it first becomes really explicit, played comedically, in The Witch, when Buffy under a spell blurts out "vampires" and Joyce says "What?" So it's already there in the show's DNA, but once again it's something the writers use as convenient without always thinking the implications through.
Also the portrayal of the bake sale Wicca group rubbed me the wrong way. Kind of condescending.
I took tarot lessons from a wiccan high priestess in college; at the time it was more empowering than therapy: reading feminist theology, modern paganism, the very notion of the Divine as something female? Powerful stuff in a culture in which "God" is always male, and female is sinful, other, a temptation, dirty etc. OTOH, I did laugh at the "spice rack" joke because there was an iota of truth to it. But it feels like the sort of exceptionalism that the show claims to question with Chosen and the Slayer spell but can't help support anyway. In truth, that scene in Hush is meant to mirror Cordy and the Cordettes mocking Willow in WTTH when buffy meets her; so I'm sure they weren't thinking the implications through, again.