From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #246 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Monday, August 25 2003 Volume 03 : Number 246 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:01:25 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:25:39 PM Central Daylight Time, cande@sunlink.net writes: > Gabrielle's journey is as complex as Xena's. She goes from idealist to > pragmatist to cynic and then rediscovers her humanity. She is on a hero's > journey. She emerges from her journey scared and damaged but still > committed to the greater good. She now knows that to know what the greater > good is the real challenge. > As someone who came late to appreciating Gabrielle, I have to agree with all you said in your wonderful post. I'm discovering that the reactions to Xena were much less complex and varied than those to Gabs. Either you loved the WP or you didn't. The main disagreement between us die-hard Xena fans is mostly over whether she became more touchy feely than some of us wanted or thought appropriate -- overall in some cases, in specific eps or scenes in other cases. I think Gabrielle represented an "innocent" and different counterpoint to Xena, which many Xena fans often found annoying and hard-core Gabfans wished had been preserved more. It seems they felt her "core" character deserved to be highlighted more, but was sacrificed for all sorts of reasons that had little to do with respecting that core. But of the Xena fans who tolerate Gabrielle, most seem not to have a problem with her becoming more like Xena (big surprise). I think we Xena fans tend to consider ourselves more as "realists" and don't find it plausible that someone could travel with the WP and not lose at least some of her innocence. The "reality" to me is that Gabs was set up from the beginning to become more like Xena. When the slavers attack, we don't see her praying to the gods for help or trying to convince the slavers of their evil ways. Her use of a verbal defense with Xena's rock-throwing kin was appropriate, because these were simple, decent folk she could argue with. She picks up a weapon first chance she gets and is certainly not dumb enough to think they don't kill. She follows Xena as much for the WP's fighting skills, as for the promise of adventure. Her "reverence for life" and "blood innocence" developed over time and in large measure because she learned how to defend herself nonlethally and had Xena there when that didn't work. I think some people wanted to take comfort in a major character who maintained her innocence despite living in a cruel world. I think some felt she came to personify ideals and qualities of compassion, nonviolence and courage that we don't see nearly enough of in the media. I think they wanted her love for Xena to change the WP more than result in herself being changed. I can understand that. However, I saw little indication that TPTB intended for her to remain untested or unchanged, certainly not after "Hooves and Harlots" and her decision not to stay at the Bard Academy. Her remaining "untouched" by her experiences would have been the anomaly, yet it became for many Gabfans the "rule" that TPTB "betrayed." I absolutely agree with you that Gabs was more complex in her way because she was shown as being an actor in her environment, just as she responded to it. She didn't want to move about in some bubble or go meditate on a mountaintop away from the people who fascinated her and she wanted to help. She wanted to experience what they experienced, understand what they faced and why they felt as they did. She wanted to explore the variety of ways -- physical, spiritual, intellectual -- that helped them deal with the evils they encountered. In the end, Gabs retained (to me) the "core" characteristics she began with - -- courage, loyalty, inquisitiveness, compassion, fairness, and the constant search for a better way to do good. She was an inspirational "everyperson" because she was not (and did not seek to be) sheltered from life's challenges. Like all of us, she had her missteps, but she usually acknowledged and overcame them with grace, optimism, selflessness, self-analysis, and the ability to laugh. I regret what she had to go through, as I do for any young person who has their hopes dashed and their dreams buffetted. But I would have regretted even more not seeing that someone like her (like many of us) could survive all that continuing to love themselves and others, continuing to fight for the kind of world they envisioned. What's sad to me is that many Gabfans don't see her as a "hero" in spite and because she chose to deal with evil rather than live in a dream not existing. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:01:31 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:14:44 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Speaking in the abstract now (and not referring to your posts at all) - > I do always object to what I consider to be attempts to judge the show in > the > light of current (frequently American :) social movements, whether that's > > feminism, political correctness, or what-have-you.>> Methinks that may be as much in your mind, as I'm seldom aware of that. I see most people speaking from their own experience or values (as I believe you do), rather than from some notion about a "movement." If they are, they usually say so or make that distinction. I don't see the difference in your talking about Brit-influenced reticence among Kiwis, which could be perceived among less reticent folks (such as myself) as a form of "political correctness." But it's precisely my awareness of the huge diversity of American responses that keeps me from taking something like that as an "us" vs. "the rest of the world" kind of thing. (e.g. the suggestion that > > the Rift was an example of 'domestic violence'). >> You don't have domestic violence in NZ? Does it occur to you that most of the posters are women, who might have a personal interest in that, which they might share with other women regardless of where they live? I don't think domestic violence is a good example. We're not talking about some evil that takes place "out there," but in people's own homes. As an American woman, I only wish it represented some kind of "social movement" that could sweep away all the barriers in our police force, the armed services, the judicial system (a huge number of women are in jail for killing/wounding abusive partners), and religious/secular marriage "canon" that still favors women putting up with such crap. I acknowledge that I > > myself doubtless have a world-view (there's probably a long German word for > it) which colours my views, but I try not to impose it too strongly on the > show. >> Sure you do. We both do. But it's there nonethless. The fundamental reason we prefer Xena to Gabrielle is shaped by our world view, as is the fact that we spend 90% of our time arguing about how Xena does/should/could act in her world, as opposed to Gabs. I'm not even going to pretend that's because the "show's called 'Xena'" or that I'd be focusing on the WP less if they changed the title to "The Adventures of Xena and Gabrielle." I identify with the WP more. Period. And everything I perceive stems from that. They could've given Gabs twice as much air time, and everything I focused on would still be related to Xena. I'd just have more scenes to fast-forward through. > > > I try to be gender-neutral in my judgements of characters, and I don't > accept > that there are 'typically male' or 'typically female' traits. > Specifically, > I don't think men have a monopoly on anger, or women on emotionalism. >> I try to be "gender neutral" as well, but I know I don't always succeed. Plus, I think there are "typical" differences, even though I don't believe those differences apply to everyone in either gender. An example is the domestic violence you spoke of above. I'd be very surprised if it cropped up as regularly and with as much emotion (fear or anger) among men as it does among women. I love Xena because she's a woman who is equally comfortable being what some might call "masculine" and "feminine." I am admittedly biased in thinking women are multi-dimensional in that way than most men, even as I try to be open to accepting that's not always the case and/or may be because of cultural expectations/conditioning. > > > >I'm only going on what I thought you > >suggested, which seemed to equate crying with being "emotional," but not > >anger. > > Roughly, in terms of common usage of the words, yes. >> See, "common usage" sounds like "politically correct" to me, as it can be applied to certain groups who aren't "toeing the line" like they're supposed to. Regardless of the emotion, they are described as "emotional" as opposed to "being reasonable." I want to know what *you* think, because you can't represent the personal motivations of those who write dictionaries or etiquette books. I don't want to argue about that anyway. I want to discuss what cr, Ife, Jackie, Cande, etc. think. When I hear "common usage" brought in, I have the same reaction you do to what you perceive to be "politically correct." It's the same to me as "everybody knows (i.e., "it's commonly accepted that") TPTB made a big mistake with AFIN and that most hard-core fans hated it." What "everybody"? How was that determined? > > >I also got the impression you believe "emotional" is somehow less > >preferable than "restrained," > > Agreed, 100% >> Okay. > > >and that "emotional" somehow connotes more > >"weakness" than "restraint" does. > > And again, agreed 100%. > > But I do *not* think this because anger is a male characteristic and > emotionalism a female one, because I _don't_ think anger *is* an exclusively > > male characteristic or emotionalism a female one. > > I think that 'restrained' is good in anybody, and emotionalism (i.e. > excessive emotion) is less desirable. >> Whereas I would rather be around someone who can "let it out" in a nondestructive way so that they can move on and I can have confidence that what I'm getting from them is "real." I have a better idea of where they are, where they stand and whether they're invested in it personally -- whether that's a "true" indicator or not. I think both restraint and emotionalism can be overused or exhibited at the wrong time. I'm more comfortable with emotionalism, but I don't necessarily think it's always "better." I also don't see "anger" as connoting more "strength" than, say crying. As Cande has pointed out, Xena considered her "rage" to be a weakness that blinded her to more effective options and abilities, as well as got a lot of innocent folks killed. This certainly applies to a > > 'warrior', of whichever gender. How far would Xena have got as a warrior > if she'd been in the habit of breaking down at difficult moments? >> Again, I don't see emotionalism as necessarily "breaking down" or leading to ineffectiveness. Gabrielle was exhibiting a range of emotions (outrage, fear, love, grief) when she saw Xena lying helpless and turned into the Gabinator. Was it a breakdown of sorts? Probably. Was understandable, even appropriate, under the circumstances? Possibly. Was it effective? She kept Xena from being killed on the spot, which might've saved them if it had been any other ep besides the one where they were supposed to be crucified no matter what. > > I also, though, think that sensitivity is good, and callousness or > obtuseness > bad. But sensitivity and restraint are quite compatible, and sensitivity > does not automatically imply emotionalism. Nor does restraint necessarily > imply obtuseness or a thick skin. Agreed. My concern is that sensitivity is labelled "weak" or "bad" in the "real" world, more often than callousness or obtuseness, even when the latter wreak havoc and cause more problems than it solves. . > Am I wrong about the > >impressions I got about your views about "emotional" in regards to anger, > >restraint and weakness? > > > >-- Ife > > No, I think you got them right. Where you got it wrong (IMO) was in > implying (intentionally or not) that I consider them gender-related, because > > I don't, or at least I try not to. >> > Perhaps I should've said "accepting of gender based connotations shared by both men and women." I do believe seeing emotions/emotionalism in terms of "weakness" or "strength" is a more "masculine" propensity, just as "best" or "who's in command" are. I don't accept that we always have to talk as though that should be our focus, even when discussing what "warriors" should be like. I especially strive for a more multi-dimensional approach when the warrior is a woman. Again, that's my bias, which I recognize isn't necessarily shared by men and women who think that shouldn't matter or believe that the basic warrior model is "masculine." - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #246 **************************************