From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #293 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, August 15 2007 Volume 16 : Number 293 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the buffy thread lives [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Sumiko Keay" ] Zevon [kevin ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Christopher Gross ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] Re: Fantasy Football ["Michael Sweeney" ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Pseudo-RH Content ["Michael Sweeney" ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:13:50 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives Hi Lauren, - --On 15. August 2007 03:05:37 -0400 Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > as i reported, i am on buffy mid-season 5 and angel mid-season 1... > > so *warning* *possible spoilers* for what i've seen so far. I don't think anyone still reading this cares ... > so is it just me or is there some really intense, dark sexuality on > buffy? It's not just you. > i listened to the commentary for the episode "innocence" (b-side of > james' album) and found it particularly interesting that the > writer/director says that buffy is, after all, a feminist. or maybe > he says buffy is a feminist show. whatever he says, i very much agree > to that point, but we're talking camille paglia feminist here. Maybe, although ... > the > relationship between angel and buffy, and buffy's relationship with > riley as well, is built into the inherent violence and danger of > sexual attraction. Yes, but I don't think they are depicted as being "healthy". > it isn't a relationship of equality. it's a > consent to the inequality of power in sexual relationships. I wouldn't say that. > and i > know that angel and buffy are sort of "special" on the show and there > are other relationships that don't have the amount of aggression, but > buffy's relationships are _central_ to the show. and anyway, willow's > relationship with oz...yawn. That's of course the kind of relationship I prefer :-) But what do I know ... > kind of a small aside - jeme mentioned (excuse my paraphrase) buffy's > having sex with angel and then he turns into a "soulless creep." one > of a girl's worst fears. but there's also a way to look at that from > the fears of the male - that true love expressed through sex > obliterates the male, I don't know what that means. > i'm curious as to whether people have an opinion about watching a show > as it airs on television vs. watching it over a much shorter period of > time on dvd. it's been interesting for me to watch BSG and buffy on > dvd. i haven't watched many television dramas, and although i confess > i enjoy the single-mindedness of sitting down with an entire season at > hand, i can't help but feel that i'm missing something because > although i'm seeing the same characters and same events, there's just > not the same relationship with a show when you watch it over a period > of e.g. a month or two vs. e.g. seven years. I've wondered about that often. But I do follow some series as they are shown on TV, and often I find that I can't even remember the last episode when the next one came. That was especially bad with Veronica Mars, because the story line (especially in season 2) was so convoluted. I consider myself an attentive viewer, but still I was lost. I don't think I would've had that problem if I had watched the series on DVD. - -- b. Sebastian Hagedorn b Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de b' http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:48:26 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: HOUSTON double feature HOUSTON - Double Feature "All My Loving" and "The Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett Story" Studio Movie Grill - 8580 Hwy 6 North - Houston, TX 77095 Monday, September 17 @ 7:45pm FREE TO THE PUBLIC ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:57:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > i'm sure you're all dying for an update, so here's where i am: > buffy season 5 - just watched "into the woods." > angel season 1 - just watched "she" (i admit i skipped a few episodes.) There are certainly some skippable episodes in Angel S1. (In fact I'd call She itself skippable, mainly because the metaphor is way too heavy-handed.) I think you're safely past the weakest episodes now, and some of the remainder of S1 is excellent. But in my opinion every later season of Angel is better than S1, each in its own unique way. > so keep going for spoilers... > > > > > > V > > > > > V > > > > > V > > > > > V > > > > > > V > > > > > (...i have no idea how what is a "polite" number of blank lines here...) I'd say the proper number is the square root of [pi]*10^e. (Just tryin' a little math talk.) > > > > V > > > > so is it just me or is there some really intense, dark sexuality on > buffy? i've actually been a bit shocked at some of what's been shown > and implied since i assume it was prime-time television when it was > on. Not only prime-time (8 pm I believe), but marketed to young people as well. They probably never would have gotten away with it if BTVS had aired on one of the big three networks, and even then it was sometimes a close thing. They also had to tone down -- not the violence, of course, violence is always welcome on TV! -- but the amount of blood shown in fight scenes. Faith, for example, realistically should have been bleeding like a stuck pig at the end of Graduation Day 1, but we hardly saw a drop. > i listened to the commentary for the episode "innocence" (b-side of > james' album) and found it particularly interesting that the > writer/director says that buffy is, after all, a feminist. or maybe > he says buffy is a feminist show. whatever he says, i very much agree > to that point, but we're talking camille paglia feminist here. the > relationship between angel and buffy, and buffy's relationship with > riley as well, is built into the inherent violence and danger of > sexual attraction. it isn't a relationship of equality. it's a > consent to the inequality of power in sexual relationships. Hmm.... I don't know Paglia's work well enough to judge that comparison. I'd say that the "violence and danger of sexual attraction," as you put it, is indeed present in all of Buffy's serious relationships -- but it's present as just one of many aspects, not the core of any of the relationships. Sometimes it's focused on (notably when he drinks Buffy's blood in Graduation Day 2, and at times when Angel has lost his soul in S2), but there are just as many or more times when it's ignored. It's better seen as a occasional recurrent theme than the constant centerpiece of Buffy's love life. Likewise with the inequality of power theme: it's an occasional source of story ideas (many of them based on the irony that Buffy is physically stronger than her male partners), but no more than that. IMO if there's any constant to Buffy's romantic relationships, it's that their course is determined by factors *outside* the sexual dynamic, namely, Buffy's continual struggles to figure out what kind of life she can have as a Slayer (and Angel's and Riley's equivalent struggles in their own lives). > kind of a small aside - jeme mentioned (excuse my paraphrase) buffy's > having sex with angel and then he turns into a "soulless creep." one > of a girl's worst fears. but there's also a way to look at that from > the fears of the male - that true love expressed through sex > obliterates the male, and to save himself, angel chooses his identity > over the annihilation of love (i think the facts surrounding the event > support jeme's statement way more than mine, but either way, angel's > having sex with buffy plays into very deep fears in both females and > males.) But that situation is definitely presented from Buffy's point of view; and of course Angel doesn't *choose* to annihilate their love. As far as male fears go, I think the classic stereotypical male's fear is not losing his identity through sexual love, but losing his personal freedom through the obligations of a committed relationship. Hence the male fantasy presented in James Bond movies, for instance, where the hero has a series of more or less loving relationships but none of them last for long or tie him down. > now onto to the small small: > i'm curious as to whether people have an opinion about watching a show > as it airs on television vs. watching it over a much shorter period of > time on dvd. it's been interesting for me to watch BSG and buffy on Oh, DVDs and the like are *far* superior to watching a show as it's broadcast. No question there. Occasionally an episode will be written with a little cliffhanger before a commercial break, so watching on DVD robs you of the three minutes that broadcast audiences had to contemplate that cliffhanger before the show resumes, but that's a small price to pay for all of DVD's advantages. > p.s. SOYLENT GREEN IS (STILL) PEOPLE!!!! And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:05:42 -0500 From: "Sumiko Keay" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/15/07, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > i'm sure you're all dying for an update, so here's where i am: > > buffy season 5 - just watched "into the woods." > > angel season 1 - just watched "she" (i admit i skipped a few episodes.) > > There are certainly some skippable episodes in Angel S1. (In fact I'd > call She itself skippable, mainly because the metaphor is way too > heavy-handed.) I think you're safely past the weakest episodes now, and > some of the remainder of S1 is excellent. But in my opinion every later > season of Angel is better than S1, each in its own unique way. > She - can't be skipped for two things: Angel's dancing (bwahahahah) and the bit in the art museum. Sumi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:34:47 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Zevon Been enjoying the at-long-last CD release of Warren Zevon's The Envoy. Always loved his work - at least the 40% or so that wasn't sentimental drek or outright filler. So I'm doing a little surfing & came across a great line in a 2000 David Fricke interview: "I'm insane. I'm fucked up. I have problems. But I don't get depressed and I don't get bored." What more can you ask out of life, really? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:39:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Sumiko Keay wrote: > > There are certainly some skippable episodes in Angel S1. (In fact I'd > > call She itself skippable, mainly because the metaphor is way too > > heavy-handed.) I think you're safely past the weakest episodes now, and > > some of the remainder of S1 is excellent. But in my opinion every later > > season of Angel is better than S1, each in its own unique way. > > She - can't be skipped for two things: Angel's dancing (bwahahahah) > and the bit in the art museum. Oh, yeah! Those scenes (the dancing in particular) illustrate the law that even the worst episodes of Buffy or Angel contain at least a couple of redeeming moments. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:06:01 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/15/07, Christopher Gross wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Sumiko Keay wrote: > > > She - can't be skipped for two things: Angel's dancing (bwahahahah) > > and the bit in the art museum. > > Oh, yeah! Those scenes (the dancing in particular) illustrate the law > that even the worst episodes of Buffy or Angel contain at least a couple > of redeeming moments. I would have to say that even "the worst episodes" are generally pretty high-quality TV...by the rather low standards set by most TV, anyway. I mean, they won't make you think you've just regressed to a state of thumbsucking, diaper-fouling infancy at least. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:39:10 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Fantasy Football On 8/14/07, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > >Anyone want to sign up for the yahoo! fantasy football league I >didn't need to set up after all? When I tried to link, I got this: "There was a problem You are not allowed to view this page because you are not in this league. (Error #152)" Not sure which is more disheartening -- getting confirmation that I'm not in Jeff's (and TC's) league...or that there are at least 152 things that can go wrong with Yahoo Fantasy Football. Oops! "There was a problem: By attempting to bench your fantasy team's quarterback, Peyton Manning, and instead promoting Rex Grossman, you have triggered Error #127, crashing all non-Linux systems currently connected to teh Intrawebs...and possibly launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against China. Have a nice day!" Michael "Remember Super Bowl XX; forget Super Bowl XLI" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ See what youre getting intobefore you go there http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:58:35 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives 2fs says: > I don't think it's a "Camille Paglia feminism" (I think Paglia's a > loudmouthed idiot for the most part), but it certainly isn't a > stereotypical, vanilla "wicca, good and love the earth, and woman power..." > thing either. (You won't recognize that quote yet!) Whedon's feminism is > simply that women, like men, should have the freedom to become who they want > - even if they make mistakes in so doing - and shouldn't be judged > differently by being women. I'll also say that *presenting* a kind of > relationship is not the same thing as *endorsing* one. it's probably fair to say that you and i are in high disagreement about paglia (well, not about the loudmouthed part.) one of paglia's main point is that men and women are _different_, a point i find increasingly ignored and denied in modern culture. buffy is attracted to the sort of mythic male, and she is, in many ways, the mythic female, but she is very much her own person. and especially in riley's case, the problems inherent in having her powers as an affront to his maleness are directly addressed. i think traditional feminists (of whom i confess i haven't read or paid attention to because they bother the crap out of me) (by traditional i only mean Not Camille) would kind of view it as "oh riley, fucking get over it." but it's an issue that's worthy of being addressed. > I'm also not sure about "the inherent violence and danger of sexual > attraction." I mean, that there are such qualities inherent therein. Some > people experience them to be sure - that doesn't make them inherent to > sexual attraction (else it wouldn't be true that other people do not > experience them...and the way out of that is only, Dworkin-like, to deny > that such people really know what they feel and have been co-opted by > sexism). i do have to apologize for having trouble keeping up my part of a discussion, but i'm trying here...(i am a slow writer - sometimes i wish we could all just hang out and it would be simpler and no one would see the typos i would have made in written form.) clearly, i'm exaggerating on "the inherent violence..." etc. so i'll try to be precise. okay, that might take all week, so i'll just try to be a bit more precise than i was. what i'm referring to is that i think the show acknowledges the darkness in male/female relationships, and their grounding in the animal instincts of people. if i get energetic later, i'll post an actual quote, but there's this book by that psychologist mark epstein i think his name is. he write books on psychology and buddhism - probably the best known one is called "thoughts without a thinker." in one of his books, he talks about a patient who had a very good relationship with his wife, with the exception of troubles with the sexual aspect of the relationship (i don't remember the exact details.) epstein talks about how in this patient, there was a component of anger missing from the sexual realm of their relationship. the anger is born of the fact that one can never truly possess the loved one, that even in the connection of the sex act, there is a distance, there is a boundary, and it generates an almost childlike anger. and this is part of what i'm talking about. i'm not meaning sex = violence thing, but more that sex lives more on the lower planes than the higher ones (that it can occasionally escape the lower planes comes, i believe, from the fact that humans _are_ different than animals.) and i know that buffy's relationships are not defined by these aspects, but i do find it interesting that the writer thinks her to be a feminist, because she's very much of a _girl_ but she is, to me, a feminist (in my sense of the word) as well. > > kind of a small aside - jeme mentioned (excuse my paraphrase) buffy's > > having sex with angel and then he turns into a "soulless creep." one > > of a girl's worst fears. but there's also a way to look at that from > > the fears of the male - that true love expressed through sex > > obliterates the male, and to save himself, angel chooses his identity > > over the annihilation of love (i think the facts surrounding the event > > support jeme's statement way more than mine, but either way, angel's > > having sex with buffy plays into very deep fears in both females and > > males.) > > When you get there, there's a key moment in the whole "Angel cannot have one > moment of 'true happiness' lest he lose his soul and turn back into a > monster" bit - given the way both series allow you to assume, repeatedly, > that "true happiness" is just TV speak for orgasmic sex. but there's a mythology to it as well... > > now onto to the small small: > > i'm curious as to whether people have an opinion about watching a show > > as it airs on television vs. watching it over a much shorter period of > > time on dvd. > You mean the relationship of "christ another damned commercial!" and "oh > great another four weeks of reruns" and "dammit! they went and rescheduled > the show for Monday at 6:36pm this week only!" and "gotta turn the show off > before the stupid previews because I hate having spoilers forcefed" and > therefore missing the announcement of the rescheduling because I live in the > dark ages and lack TiVo or the equivalent? specifically what i'm talking about it is that i think that you get to know the characters in a different way, and i feel like i'm cheating myself a bit by having it all happen so quickly. i mean, i know if you have a book, for instance, you can rip through or take your time, take your choice. but there are books that take serial form, and i would imagine that adds to people's love of the characters. i mean, what if all those harry potter books just dropped all at once? there is something kind of cool about non-instant gratification... > I'd far rather watch DVDs and watch the shows more quickly, when I want, w/o > commercials. But then, I would: two months ago we cancelled our cable TV, > and no longer even have the ability to watch real-time TV. Any new episodes > of any show we want to watch, we'll wait for the DVDs (if we were geekier or > more impatient, we'd download them). Then, we've been purposely avoiding > watching new shows - the only current show we're planning on watching is > _24_ when its next season DVD comes out probably a year from December. there's this thing called an "antenna"... as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:01:50 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Pseudo-RH Content Sumiko wrote: >Look there's a website: > >http://www.mywifeandmydeadwifethemovie.com/ >On 8/14/07, Aaron L. wrote: >>Sooooo.... >> >>I admit that there are periods of time when I don't follow the list >>as closely as others, and this may have been mentioned here before but.... >> >>http://imdb.com/title/tt1050170/ ...Am I the only one who'll see it? (Nah, just kidding -- I hate even semi-good horror movies, much less assumed crap like this...just couldn't resist the (probably already made; on the digest here) joke...) ...And, as for Rex' question, unless they're actually using Robyn's song (or a remake of it) -- and that seems doubtful, since the movie's site boasts original music and an original song from others (along with the filmmakers and actors, also never heard of before) -- no money is likely to flow Uncle Robbie's way. You cannot copyright a title alone...(however, if the film used a promo tagline (in posters or commercials) of something like "Am I the only one who sees her?" he may well have grounds for something...) Michael "Not a lawyer...and doesn't even play one on TV" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:29:17 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives Sebastian says: > Hi Lauren, hi sebastian ;) > I don't think anyone still reading this cares ... touche. > > the > > relationship between angel and buffy, and buffy's relationship with > > riley as well, is built into the inherent violence and danger of > > sexual attraction. > > Yes, but I don't think they are depicted as being "healthy". agreed, but the relationships are _interesting_. and perhaps more realistic. i do know a fair amount people who have healthy relationships, but, you know, i'm sheltered. a number of female friends (these tend to be my non-geek friends (which may actually be relevant to the discussion)) are, unfortunately, not in that camp. actually, probably the healthiest person i know (not just as far as relationships, but all-around) is gay, and, again, i wonder about the correlation. i think there's a real confusion for men and woman in "the modern world" - for their roles, for their identities, and my gay friend has not had these issues. not that being gay doesn't present its difficulties - i don't mean that all - but i think that in some ways, the "straight" world is a bit rough these days as well. > > it isn't a relationship of equality. it's a > > consent to the inequality of power in sexual relationships. > > I wouldn't say that. this i'll have to think more about to see if i can better articulate my point. but perhaps i made it, and we just disagree on the issue. > > and i > > know that angel and buffy are sort of "special" on the show and there > > are other relationships that don't have the amount of aggression, but > > buffy's relationships are _central_ to the show. and anyway, willow's > > relationship with oz...yawn. > > That's of course the kind of relationship I prefer :-) But what do I know > ... do you mean prefer in real life or prefer in fiction (or both)? in fiction, i definitely go for the high-tension relationships, and in real life, i'll say i know better. sometimes. btw, isn't the whole thing with vampires kind of tied into these things? i'm not much up on the vampire mythology, but it _does_ seem like they have the old-fashioned darkness thing going on. i mean, doesn't love has an aspect of _consumption_ in the vampire world? there's got to be some weird power shit going on there. > > kind of a small aside - jeme mentioned (excuse my paraphrase) buffy's > > having sex with angel and then he turns into a "soulless creep." one > > of a girl's worst fears. but there's also a way to look at that from > > the fears of the male - that true love expressed through sex > > obliterates the male, > > I don't know what that means. again, apologies on my not keeping up my end here - i know i should explain my point better here, but it has to do with females being more comfortable with the idea of merging in their relationships. their boundaries of self are more permeable. so permeable, in fact, that occasionally another being pops out of them. they are more of water, and males are more of the earth. male identity is in many ways a creation of men, whereas female identity is more a creation of nature. males are more threatened by loss of identity. i'm talking in general, of course. but it's the idea that one of the (archetypal i think i mean) reasons the male fears true love and commitment is a primal fear of the loss of self. > I've wondered about that often. But I do follow some series as they are > shown on TV, and often I find that I can't even remember the last episode > when the next one came. that's a good point. it's probably one of the reasons i can actually remember a few of the names of the episodes. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:40:37 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives Sumi says: > She - can't be skipped for two things: Angel's dancing (bwahahahah) > and the bit in the art museum. oh, i loved the baudelaire bit. (i also love the little sort of toss-off things about angel's like the short shot (i think it was a buffy episode) of his reading "nausea" (i assume it was) - in the original french of course. btw, do they ever explain when the hell he lost the bad accent? i do intend to go back and watch the episodes i skipped...it's just from what folks were saying, it gets better towards the second season. plus you know i'm having the issue with all those clothes they keep making him wear, and i'm hoping that they came to their senses in later episodes. ugh. i apologize for all the girly talk. i'm really not the "oh what a hunk" type...it's just that he looks so dumb but then, surprise, there's all the brooding and silence, and he's all like "oh, i'll die for you in an instant" and the knowing latin thing, and anyway, it's not _my_ fault how damn good he looks without the shirt. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:00:55 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/15/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > I don't think it's a "Camille Paglia feminism" (I think Paglia's a > > loudmouthed idiot for the most part), but it certainly isn't a > > stereotypical, vanilla "wicca, good and love the earth, and woman > power..." > > thing either. (You won't recognize that quote yet!) Whedon's feminism is > > simply that women, like men, should have the freedom to become who they > want > > - even if they make mistakes in so doing - and shouldn't be judged > > differently by being women. I'll also say that *presenting* a kind of > > relationship is not the same thing as *endorsing* one. > > it's probably fair to say that you and i are in high disagreement > about paglia (well, not about the loudmouthed part.) one of paglia's > main point is that men and women are _different_, a point i find > increasingly ignored and denied in modern culture. Yes - but Paglia's by far not the only one acknowledging that. But rather than get sidetracked by a discussion on the pros and cons of Camille Paglia (which I also don't want to do because it would mean I'd be duty-bound to read her stuff again), I'll just drop the Paglia-bashing. Actually this part of my response will be better placed in response to your response to Sebastian's response to the house that Jack built. buffy is attracted > to the sort of mythic male, and she is, in many ways, the mythic > female, but she is very much her own person. and especially in > riley's case, the problems inherent in having her powers as an affront > to his maleness are directly addressed. i think traditional feminists > (of whom i confess i haven't read or paid attention to because they > bother the crap out of me) (by traditional i only mean Not Camille) > would kind of view it as "oh riley, fucking get over it." Some feminists, yes. I have read a number of feminist writers (years ago, granted), and I do think you're getting a bit of the media filter effect whereby the range and diversity of feminist thought is dimmed/dumbed down into a handful of (generally rather negative) stereotypes. Anyway: regardless of who says what or whether we'll call them feminists ;-), it's certainly true that the last forty years or so have seen much unsettling in gender roles, and that (because they're being asked, or told, to give up the more socially powerful end of that deal) men often have a rougher time of it than women do. It seems to me also that men are, generally, more judgmental of other men's manliness in terms of attitude, presentation, interest, etc., than are women. Of course, by definition I don't know what women say to women among only women (because the cameras and mics I installed didn't work properly), but that's my impression - if only because there's no insult to women along sex-role lines as intensive as "fag" is among men. Anyway: I'd be more sympathetic to Riley's predicament if I liked his character better (and if Marc Blucas were a better actor) - sorry, I'm kinda in the anti-Riley crowd there. Although he got better: when he returns (don't know if you've gotten that far, so I'll avoid details) he actually seems far more grounded and worthy - and it's Buffy who's rather more messed up at that point. > > if i get energetic later, i'll post an actual quote, but there's this > book by that psychologist mark epstein i think his name is. he write > books on psychology and buddhism - probably the best known one is > called "thoughts without a thinker." in one of his books, he talks > about a patient who had a very good relationship with his wife, with > the exception of troubles with the sexual aspect of the relationship > (i don't remember the exact details.) epstein talks about how in this > patient, there was a component of anger missing from the sexual realm > of their relationship. the anger is born of the fact that one can > never truly possess the loved one, that even in the connection of the > sex act, there is a distance, there is a boundary, and it generates an > almost childlike anger. and this is part of what i'm talking about. > i'm not meaning sex = violence thing, but more that sex lives more on > the lower planes than the higher ones (that it can occasionally escape > the lower planes comes, i believe, from the fact that humans _are_ > different than animals.) Maybe (on the "lower planes/anger" thing). Though I'm certainly not one to trace everything to biology and evolutionary advantage, tending to favor culture instead, I'm also not about to throw out the importance of biology. And is true that sex is obviously a very deep and inherent quality of human existence...but the ways in which it's expressed (or rejected, or avoided, or danced about) vary tremendously from culture to culture. In a highly competitive, male-dominated culture, naturally men in particular will experience anxiety if that sort of dominance they've been trained to expect doesn't happen - and I think it's significant that ME chose to make Riley a military man (i.e., a very structured organization that's traditionally a sine qua non of maleness). > > > I'd far rather watch DVDs and watch the shows more quickly, when I want, > w/o > > commercials. But then, I would: two months ago we cancelled our cable > TV, > > and no longer even have the ability to watch real-time TV. Any new > episodes > > of any show we want to watch, we'll wait for the DVDs (if we were > geekier or > > more impatient, we'd download them). Then, we've been purposely avoiding > > watching new shows - the only current show we're planning on watching is > > _24_ when its next season DVD comes out probably a year from December. > > there's this thing called an "antenna"... Ah yes - but there's also this thing called "lame reception here" and this other thing called "but there's nothign we really want to watch anyway." - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #293 ********************************