I recently became acquainted with the concept of "mansplaining." As I understand it, the term began as a way for feminists to describe a stereotypical situation in which a naïve, ignorant, or boorish man tries condescendingly to explain something to an intellectually superior woman. (Note: this is not bigotry, because Male Privilege.) Since its coining, though, the term has expanded as a means of invalidating any non-feminist opinion held by a man. If you have not been tutored in or have refused to accept the dogmas of a feminist worldview, then any objection you may voice to a feminist is necessarily ignorant and naïve. For example, suggestion that male brain chemistry, e.g. high levels of testosterone, rather than culture and privilege, is the cause of both male violence and male dynamism would be pooh-poohed on as flagrant mansplaining. Ditto on a rejection of Male Guilt because you have never oppressed a woman: the critical theory you-benefit-from-an-unfair-system-therefore-you're-guilty-too answer is the only right answer. If you've rejected this idea, either because you don't beleive that the system is as unfair as they say, or because you feel that it's just a rebranding of collective guilt, you're mansplaining. The same basic pattern goes for "Whitesplaining," "Christsplaining," or any other "explaining" from a non-leftist perspective (most tellingly, "rightsplaining").
This all boils down to intellectual and political orthodoxy, and the silencing of non-liberal opinions. Just like men are not allowed to question feminist opinions, a white person cannot cast aspersions on Michael Brown or condemn the lynch mob in Ferguson because of "White Privilege," straights can't go against orthodox opinions on homosexual issues, and so on. Conversely, a woman who goes against feminism is a stupid, brainwashed twit, conservative blacks are Uncle Toms, conservative gays are "chickens voting for KFC," etc.
The only real answer is a simple and unequivocal rejection of these ideas. The more we refuse to accept "white privilege," "male privilege," "mansplaining," etc., and the more we vocally out thes ideas as collectivist censorship and propaganda tools, the more they will be rightfully recognized by the public as leftist dog-whistle terms and not legitimate, much less revolutionary, ideas. As a good friend of mine was fond of saying, "Let collectivism burn in the light of day."
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Taking out the "Mobile Infantry"
With all the new technology these days, I sometimes feel like it will soon be impossible for citizens in any developed country to challenge a tyrannical government. Helicopters and tanks are susceptible to infantry, as we saw in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but what about drones? Satellites? Night vision goggles? And in the developed world, (America excepted) there is very little wilderness to hide in. Cities are replete with security and traffic cameras.
All of that would make things difficult, but not impossible.
As I was discussing this with a friend one day, he brought up a story he'd seen on the news about the development of powered Armor, like the kind in the book Starship Troopers. If you're unfamiliar with the concept, read about it here.
First of all, powered armor will never fully replace infantry and standard military vehicles. Even if they could come up with a power source light enough to sustain it for more than a few hours, its range and capabilities would still be too limited for most operations: if batteries were used to power the suit, the only way to use powered armor-soldiers would be in the defense, or in vehicles where they could have their batteries charging while approaching the enemy. Flexibility, range of motion, ability to accurately aim and perform fine motor tasks would likely never be perfected. Maintenence nightmares increase exponentially as technological complexity grows. In addition, a rotten and corrupt bureaucratic tyranny will find it difficult to afford such weapons, and will produce models of doubtful quality and reliability.
So how would you beat the ones they did field? The same way you defeat enemy vehicles: rockets and bombs. Grenades would probably kill the operator, too, if delivered accurately. In extremis rifle fire would break vision and hearing devices, damage moving parts, and degrade the machine's ability to fight, just like with a tank or IFVs. But it would be even easier than all that. Such weapons would rely on massive amounts of maintenance by highly trained operators and technicians, and a steady supply system to deliver expensive batteries, fuels, and parts. Each unit you destroyed would be a multi-million dollar loss to the enemy. Disrupt the supply chain, break the machines and wipe out operators with IEDs and anti-tank weapons, target maintenance personnel and facilities, and soon the whole program would implode. Cut the strings and the marionette will tumble, no matter how impressive or formidable he is.
All of that would make things difficult, but not impossible.
As I was discussing this with a friend one day, he brought up a story he'd seen on the news about the development of powered Armor, like the kind in the book Starship Troopers. If you're unfamiliar with the concept, read about it here.
First of all, powered armor will never fully replace infantry and standard military vehicles. Even if they could come up with a power source light enough to sustain it for more than a few hours, its range and capabilities would still be too limited for most operations: if batteries were used to power the suit, the only way to use powered armor-soldiers would be in the defense, or in vehicles where they could have their batteries charging while approaching the enemy. Flexibility, range of motion, ability to accurately aim and perform fine motor tasks would likely never be perfected. Maintenence nightmares increase exponentially as technological complexity grows. In addition, a rotten and corrupt bureaucratic tyranny will find it difficult to afford such weapons, and will produce models of doubtful quality and reliability.
So how would you beat the ones they did field? The same way you defeat enemy vehicles: rockets and bombs. Grenades would probably kill the operator, too, if delivered accurately. In extremis rifle fire would break vision and hearing devices, damage moving parts, and degrade the machine's ability to fight, just like with a tank or IFVs. But it would be even easier than all that. Such weapons would rely on massive amounts of maintenance by highly trained operators and technicians, and a steady supply system to deliver expensive batteries, fuels, and parts. Each unit you destroyed would be a multi-million dollar loss to the enemy. Disrupt the supply chain, break the machines and wipe out operators with IEDs and anti-tank weapons, target maintenance personnel and facilities, and soon the whole program would implode. Cut the strings and the marionette will tumble, no matter how impressive or formidable he is.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
OCP for All Services?
The Army announced this year that Scorpion II, a multicam-type pattern owned by the Army, will replace the ugly and ineffective greenish-gray digital camo currently in service (it's called OCP). This comes after congress passed a law last year calling for all four military services to return to a common camo pattern.
Some have suggested the Marine "Marpat" for all services, but I think something bigger is brewing. I think the Army's decision to start aggressively implementing a "new" camo, one that is already well-liked and widely used, is a signal that the battle-proven multicam will be pushed as the new military-wide camo. It's already being worn by all four overseas services in Afghanistan - a degree of universality that hasn't been seen since the BDU and DCU were dumped. And I think in a peeing contest between the tiny USMC and the Army Juggernaut, the Army will probably get its way. Either pattern (MARPAT and Scorpion) will serve our troops fine. But I really expect that, when the chest beating and anatomy measuring is all said and done, we'll see Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in the brown and green spotted OCP.
Some have suggested the Marine "Marpat" for all services, but I think something bigger is brewing. I think the Army's decision to start aggressively implementing a "new" camo, one that is already well-liked and widely used, is a signal that the battle-proven multicam will be pushed as the new military-wide camo. It's already being worn by all four overseas services in Afghanistan - a degree of universality that hasn't been seen since the BDU and DCU were dumped. And I think in a peeing contest between the tiny USMC and the Army Juggernaut, the Army will probably get its way. Either pattern (MARPAT and Scorpion) will serve our troops fine. But I really expect that, when the chest beating and anatomy measuring is all said and done, we'll see Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in the brown and green spotted OCP.
Monday, October 6, 2014
This is (Definitely Not) Sparta
300: Rise of an Empire hit theaters earlier this year. Like 300, it was blasted with the standard charges leveled at any movie that seeks to glorify or lionize any phase of Western Civilization: it was racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, and excessively violent. I don't really care about those (mostly) frivolous criticisms. But I do want to talk about the difference between Laconophilia and Philhellenism, and why the latter should be embraced and the former eschewed.
Admiration is certainly due the ancient Greeks. Such affinity is called Philhellenism. I am a Philhellene because I believe that, while the Greek polis lacked some of our modern refinement (chattel slavery was allowed, Christianity unknown, women disenfranchised) it was a treasure trove of enlightened ideals. Greece, or Hellas, was a land of farmers, a society that valued hard work, and was equally distrustful of aristocrats and radicals. Broad-based government (timocracy and democracy), written constitutions, rule of law, individual rights, trial by jury, civic militarism, and free enterprise all have their roots in the polis - not to mention, of course, Greek contributions to medicine, science, mathematics, historical inquiry, philosophy, and literature. The whole framework of modern intellectual endeavor is Greek - the flesh and bones of our political freedoms, too. If the ancient Greeks don't measure up to modern people in some ways, perhaps it is because we have a two-and a half millennium head start.
The problem is not with Greece, but with Sparta. Sparta and Athens were both extreme by Greek standards. Athens had radical democracy that frequently resulted in rule of law being tossed out in favor of mobocracy (i.e., the execution of the generals after Arginusae) and a penchant for imperialism that made her neighbors nervous. But Sparta was the true black sheep, a hyper-militaristic oligarchy whose prowess in arms was built entirely on perpetual inter-generational slavery of a people called helots. Individual rights existed only for the Spartiates and freemen (Mothakes and Perioeci), the latter of which had only some voting/civic rights. Even the Spartiates had no real freedom; their entire lives were lived according to strict rules (a Spartan man was not allowed to travel, even to another town within Lacadaemon, and had to sneak out of the barracks to sleep with his own wife). The Spartiate's only real right was to vote himself into a strange sort of militarized slavery. Helots were ritually murdered on an annual basis to discourage rebellion.
Contrast this with the average Greek city state, where the city state's army was its farmers. The same men grew the food, made the laws, and marched out under arms to defend their territory. What a model for a political order. There was selective franchise - Greek farmers, like Alexis de Tocqueville, knew that giving the poor the power to vote themselves other people's money would destroy freedom.
The Spartans had their moments, no doubt, including the heroic, if strategically insignificant, action at Thermopayle. But they were absent at Marathon and contributed only six ships at Salamis, the two greatest Greek victories against the Persians.
I want to see a serious, mature film about Greek hoplites, one that introduces American moviegoers to the greatness of Greek culture, courage, and martial prowess in a historically accurate way, no Spartan rah-rah - not to mention Spartan social and political vices - needed.
Admiration is certainly due the ancient Greeks. Such affinity is called Philhellenism. I am a Philhellene because I believe that, while the Greek polis lacked some of our modern refinement (chattel slavery was allowed, Christianity unknown, women disenfranchised) it was a treasure trove of enlightened ideals. Greece, or Hellas, was a land of farmers, a society that valued hard work, and was equally distrustful of aristocrats and radicals. Broad-based government (timocracy and democracy), written constitutions, rule of law, individual rights, trial by jury, civic militarism, and free enterprise all have their roots in the polis - not to mention, of course, Greek contributions to medicine, science, mathematics, historical inquiry, philosophy, and literature. The whole framework of modern intellectual endeavor is Greek - the flesh and bones of our political freedoms, too. If the ancient Greeks don't measure up to modern people in some ways, perhaps it is because we have a two-and a half millennium head start.
The problem is not with Greece, but with Sparta. Sparta and Athens were both extreme by Greek standards. Athens had radical democracy that frequently resulted in rule of law being tossed out in favor of mobocracy (i.e., the execution of the generals after Arginusae) and a penchant for imperialism that made her neighbors nervous. But Sparta was the true black sheep, a hyper-militaristic oligarchy whose prowess in arms was built entirely on perpetual inter-generational slavery of a people called helots. Individual rights existed only for the Spartiates and freemen (Mothakes and Perioeci), the latter of which had only some voting/civic rights. Even the Spartiates had no real freedom; their entire lives were lived according to strict rules (a Spartan man was not allowed to travel, even to another town within Lacadaemon, and had to sneak out of the barracks to sleep with his own wife). The Spartiate's only real right was to vote himself into a strange sort of militarized slavery. Helots were ritually murdered on an annual basis to discourage rebellion.
Contrast this with the average Greek city state, where the city state's army was its farmers. The same men grew the food, made the laws, and marched out under arms to defend their territory. What a model for a political order. There was selective franchise - Greek farmers, like Alexis de Tocqueville, knew that giving the poor the power to vote themselves other people's money would destroy freedom.
The Spartans had their moments, no doubt, including the heroic, if strategically insignificant, action at Thermopayle. But they were absent at Marathon and contributed only six ships at Salamis, the two greatest Greek victories against the Persians.
I want to see a serious, mature film about Greek hoplites, one that introduces American moviegoers to the greatness of Greek culture, courage, and martial prowess in a historically accurate way, no Spartan rah-rah - not to mention Spartan social and political vices - needed.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Lies and Misrepresentations About Kroger and Guns
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, also variously known as One Million Moms for Gun Control and 1MM4GC, a group of "concerned moms" funded by bazillionaire neo-totalitarian Michael Bloomberg are on the attack against gun rights - and the HuffPost is all on board with their plan to shame the Kroger Co into banning guns in their stores.
What? No one is surprised? Yeah, didn't think so.
It's typical liberal strategy: if you can't steal people's freedom legislatively, because no one wants your oppressive gun control laws, try executive fiat. If that fails, go to the courts. When that doesn't work, bring out the protestors and billionaire-funded astro-turf agitators like MDA and try to accomplish your goals by bullying and smearing private businesses into banning guns.
Please keep in mind that many of these same liberals don't think these businesses should have the right to decide what products to sell (e.g. Contraceptives and abortifacients), but have no problem with them flexing their property rights when it comes to guns. Because, if I remember correctly, the Constitution guarantees a right to every type of birth control, but not to bear arms.
Of course, the Huffington Post story puts MDA's membership at two million - probably a wildly exaggerated number, considering Wikipedia gives a figure of "over 150,000." So let's see how these 300 Persians fare in their brave stand against the 5 million freedom-loving Americans of the NRA.
Don't Tread on Me
What? No one is surprised? Yeah, didn't think so.
It's typical liberal strategy: if you can't steal people's freedom legislatively, because no one wants your oppressive gun control laws, try executive fiat. If that fails, go to the courts. When that doesn't work, bring out the protestors and billionaire-funded astro-turf agitators like MDA and try to accomplish your goals by bullying and smearing private businesses into banning guns.
Please keep in mind that many of these same liberals don't think these businesses should have the right to decide what products to sell (e.g. Contraceptives and abortifacients), but have no problem with them flexing their property rights when it comes to guns. Because, if I remember correctly, the Constitution guarantees a right to every type of birth control, but not to bear arms.
Of course, the Huffington Post story puts MDA's membership at two million - probably a wildly exaggerated number, considering Wikipedia gives a figure of "over 150,000." So let's see how these 300 Persians fare in their brave stand against the 5 million freedom-loving Americans of the NRA.
Don't Tread on Me
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Congress Outs Obama Gun Control Program
Obama and Holder are at it again, this time with "Operation Choke Point," which uses executive fiat to illegally deprive Americans of their Fifth and Second Amendment rights.
Read About it:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/15/lawmakers-throw-light-secretive-operation-choke-point/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/24/operation-choke-point/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/18/operation-choke-point-hearing-reveals-doj-threats-and-strong-arming/
Read About it:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/15/lawmakers-throw-light-secretive-operation-choke-point/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/24/operation-choke-point/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/18/operation-choke-point-hearing-reveals-doj-threats-and-strong-arming/
Thoughts on Eric Frein
Eric Frein, the "survivalist" who is accused of killing two state troopers and toying with the police trying to catch him, is still at large, according to CNN.
Some thoughts:
1. This guy murdered two people in cold blood, and for that he deserves to hang.
2. His immediate motivation for the murders (both victims were State Troopers) appears to be his arrest and jailing over some WWII memorabilia he stole. (He is said to have been a reenactor of Cold War conflicts, obsessed with Russia and Serbia).
3. He is described by police reports as hating the federal government and being a survivalist in "both ideology and practice."
4. It's possible that he's playing out his Cold War fantasies and imagining himself a heroic enemy of the Federal gov't.
5. Look out for the tired "right wing extremists are everywhere," "Survivalists are Nazis," and "we need more gun control," schtick from MSNBC, CNN, the HuffPost, etc.
6. If the actions of one lunatic mean we need to start targeting people for emergency preparedness and lack of blind faith in an all-powerful federal government, maybe we should also target people who speak Russian or Serbian, people who have Mohawk haircuts, people who have trouble holding down a job, and people who wear adult diapers:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/justice/pennsylvania-suspected-cop-killer/index.html
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhunt-suspected-killer-eric-frein-aggravates-locals-article-1.1950742
Some thoughts:
1. This guy murdered two people in cold blood, and for that he deserves to hang.
2. His immediate motivation for the murders (both victims were State Troopers) appears to be his arrest and jailing over some WWII memorabilia he stole. (He is said to have been a reenactor of Cold War conflicts, obsessed with Russia and Serbia).
3. He is described by police reports as hating the federal government and being a survivalist in "both ideology and practice."
4. It's possible that he's playing out his Cold War fantasies and imagining himself a heroic enemy of the Federal gov't.
5. Look out for the tired "right wing extremists are everywhere," "Survivalists are Nazis," and "we need more gun control," schtick from MSNBC, CNN, the HuffPost, etc.
6. If the actions of one lunatic mean we need to start targeting people for emergency preparedness and lack of blind faith in an all-powerful federal government, maybe we should also target people who speak Russian or Serbian, people who have Mohawk haircuts, people who have trouble holding down a job, and people who wear adult diapers:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/justice/pennsylvania-suspected-cop-killer/index.html
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhunt-suspected-killer-eric-frein-aggravates-locals-article-1.1950742
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
A Time for Cash
ABC News reports, on the heels of the massive Home Depot data breach, that 43% of all businesses experience data breaches.
When will Americans rediscover the advantages of cash and paper checks over digital money?
After high school, when I went to college and got my first job, I paid for everything with cash. When I got my first rental house, then got married, I paid for my gas and groceries with cash and my utilities and other bills by check. If I ordered products through the mail, I checked the website to see if I could order by phone, to avoid sending my credit card numbers over the internet.
I didn't worry about being robbed, because in addition to cash I carried a .38 snub nose.
I know that there is always Lifelock and other ID theft protection services, but I can't help but feel that, sometimes, the simple answer is the best: don't want your debit card number stolen? Don't use a debit card.
Editorial Note (09/25/2014): I realize that identity theives can use PII other than credit/debit card numbers. I'm only proposing a remedy to one type of identity theft, and one of the most common ones.
When will Americans rediscover the advantages of cash and paper checks over digital money?
After high school, when I went to college and got my first job, I paid for everything with cash. When I got my first rental house, then got married, I paid for my gas and groceries with cash and my utilities and other bills by check. If I ordered products through the mail, I checked the website to see if I could order by phone, to avoid sending my credit card numbers over the internet.
I didn't worry about being robbed, because in addition to cash I carried a .38 snub nose.
I know that there is always Lifelock and other ID theft protection services, but I can't help but feel that, sometimes, the simple answer is the best: don't want your debit card number stolen? Don't use a debit card.
Fig.1: Note that 65% of data breaches involve digital devices.
Editorial Note (09/25/2014): I realize that identity theives can use PII other than credit/debit card numbers. I'm only proposing a remedy to one type of identity theft, and one of the most common ones.
Monday, September 22, 2014
The Top Five Things Wrong with Buffy the Vampire Slayer
When I was middle-school age, I had friends who were obsessed with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It looked interesting to me, but there was no cable TV at my parents' house, and I saw maybe half of one episode. That is, until I was in my twenties, and my wife and I decided to try Netflix. I watched each of Buffy's seven seasons.
The first four certainly had their moments. There were episodes in later seasons that had merits, too. But the more I watched the show, the more I began it see it as an artistic and aesthetic failure. By the end, I felt that Joss Whedon had woven a dozen-odd brilliant threads (e.g. the musical episode "Once More, With Feeling," the silent episode "Hush," etc.) into a subpar, even absurd, tapestry.
If I tried to enumerate everything wrong with Buffy, it would likely take the rest of my natural life. But I decided it would be worthwhile to point out the most important reasons that the show is a failure, and perhaps the most overrated television series in history.
# 5 - Spike
Spike is a completely incoherent character. The great thing about Spike, when he first appeared in season two, was his toughness and bad attitude. And the fact that he is an irredeemably depraved demon. A pretty fair villain. So, naturally, the show's makers put a chip into his head that magically transformed him into a soppy romantic who is in love with Buffy because... well, just because. Even then, instead of being Buffy's bad-boy boyfriend, he's a pathetic, pussywhipped whiner. Everything that makes Angel work - the fact that he has a soul, his dour, broody demeanor, his mysteriousness - Spike has none of it, and all attempts to inject these traits into the character through his backstory and/or character "development" just made him more confusing and plastic.
# 4 - Joss Whedon's soapbox
The first four certainly had their moments. There were episodes in later seasons that had merits, too. But the more I watched the show, the more I began it see it as an artistic and aesthetic failure. By the end, I felt that Joss Whedon had woven a dozen-odd brilliant threads (e.g. the musical episode "Once More, With Feeling," the silent episode "Hush," etc.) into a subpar, even absurd, tapestry.
If I tried to enumerate everything wrong with Buffy, it would likely take the rest of my natural life. But I decided it would be worthwhile to point out the most important reasons that the show is a failure, and perhaps the most overrated television series in history.
# 5 - Spike
Spike is a completely incoherent character. The great thing about Spike, when he first appeared in season two, was his toughness and bad attitude. And the fact that he is an irredeemably depraved demon. A pretty fair villain. So, naturally, the show's makers put a chip into his head that magically transformed him into a soppy romantic who is in love with Buffy because... well, just because. Even then, instead of being Buffy's bad-boy boyfriend, he's a pathetic, pussywhipped whiner. Everything that makes Angel work - the fact that he has a soul, his dour, broody demeanor, his mysteriousness - Spike has none of it, and all attempts to inject these traits into the character through his backstory and/or character "development" just made him more confusing and plastic.
# 4 - Joss Whedon's soapbox
The show increasingly becomes Joss Whedon's platform to plug his pet political causes. I get into some of them in more detail below; the long and short of it is that it's annoying when one is trying to enjoy a television show, but can't because the entire thing is beginning to feel like an extended political commercial. It seemed every week, Buffy was blasting a new villain, but not one with horns or fangs: men, religion, capitalism, patriarchy, men, heteronormativity, men, white people, rich people, and men were a few of the show's most heinous monsters. Where is the line that separates art and propaganda? Somewhere in Joss Whedon's rearview mirror.
# 3 - The Absurdity of "the Slayer"
The Slayer is a perfect feminist literary woman: she is at once an all powerful, girls-can-do-anything-boys-can
What a bizzare set up. Oppression by the granting of power? As demonstrated by Faith and Buffy, a Watcher's Council composed of ordinary humans (mostly male) can't force the Slayer to do anything, exactly because she has superpowers. There is no reasonable way to rectify this disconnect between the Slayer (hero) and the Slayer (victim) - no one gives power as a means of oppression.
The "Slayer" as a feminist hero is part of a long history of feminist writers fantasizing about women being physically superior to men. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's 1915 Herland, a feminist utopia in which women are stronger and faster than men, and reproduce by parthenogenesis independent of any male involvement, is a similarly absurd pipe dream. Perkins seeks to escape "patriarchy," by presenting an ideal society, but for her vision to work human biological mechanics must be completely rewritten. Similarly, Buffy seeks to empower women with imaginary powers. If feminists of Whedon's mold must imagine reality out of existence for their ideas to work, I think it might be fair to say they are intellectually bankrupt.
The Slayer should have been a character of either sex, sometimes male, sometimes female, more like the witches/wizards in Harry Potter or the Avatars from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Instead, Whedon made his signature hero little more than a mascot for his crude version of Feminism.
# 2 - The Show Went Too Long
Buffy's creators, understandably enamoured with their creation and emboldened by its success, continued to produce season after season of teen drama, intrigue, and supernatural action. They even planned ahead, slipping in early references to villians and big events in the later seasons. The problem is that if you save the world in season one, you're going to have quite a time topping yourself in season two. Yet Buffy saved the world in season one, and saved the world again... and again... and again... seven times. By the end, the villains are so tiresome, the once-innovative show so formulaic, the fresh characters so stale, the show becomes painful to watch.
.
# 1 - BUFFY
Anthony Stewart Head's character, Giles, is probably the most compelling in the series. Charisma Carpenter's obnoxious, airheaded Cordelia is always worth a laugh. Xander's combination of goofy jokester and loyal terrier works well. Willow is a very good character, but the show's creators had to scratch the whimsical, beautiful nerd kitsch that made Allyson Hannigan a star, since the character was growing up and risked getting stale; plus, they wanted to transform her into a villain; she was never really the same after that. Tara is an endearing character, but instantly forgettable. Dawn and Kennedy have had the honor of being voted onto "Most Annoying Character Ever" lists, but I would argue that even they have their moments.
There is, however, not a single good thing about Buffy. She is immature, bratty, selfish, and (particularly when it comes to her relationships) she is unreasonable, petulant, and unjustifiably argumentative (e.g., when she convinces Angel to have sex with Faith as part of a plot to defeat her, then treats him like garbage for "cheating" on her). I think, probably, Whedon meant to create a stereotype-crushing "strong woman" character, but Buffy ends up being unbearable, and reinforcing many of the worst ideas people have about women generally and feminist women in particular.
Ironically, Buffy's "evil" co-Slayer, Faith, who for the course of one season deserts to the sorcerous Mayor and works as his thug, would have made a much better series protagonist. At the very least, Buffy needed some of Faith's rough pragmatism and relaxed personality. Faith, from the start, is a hero, but a flawed hero who begins to discover how bad she really is, and fix it. This makes her far more likeable, despite her shaky moral compass and erratic behavior, than Buffy, who is set up as a paradigm of virtue, which only works if your concept of virtue is more or less completely upside down.
Whedon's Idea of non-Witchcraft Religion.
Villains include: The Master, the Anointed One, Faith, Adam, the overzealous and dogmatic monastic "Knights of Byzantium," "the First," and Caleb (pictured above).
# 3 - The Absurdity of "the Slayer"
The Slayer is a perfect feminist literary woman: she is at once an all powerful, girls-can-do-anything-boys-can
What a bizzare set up. Oppression by the granting of power? As demonstrated by Faith and Buffy, a Watcher's Council composed of ordinary humans (mostly male) can't force the Slayer to do anything, exactly because she has superpowers. There is no reasonable way to rectify this disconnect between the Slayer (hero) and the Slayer (victim) - no one gives power as a means of oppression.
The "Slayer" as a feminist hero is part of a long history of feminist writers fantasizing about women being physically superior to men. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's 1915 Herland, a feminist utopia in which women are stronger and faster than men, and reproduce by parthenogenesis independent of any male involvement, is a similarly absurd pipe dream. Perkins seeks to escape "patriarchy," by presenting an ideal society, but for her vision to work human biological mechanics must be completely rewritten. Similarly, Buffy seeks to empower women with imaginary powers. If feminists of Whedon's mold must imagine reality out of existence for their ideas to work, I think it might be fair to say they are intellectually bankrupt.
The Slayer should have been a character of either sex, sometimes male, sometimes female, more like the witches/wizards in Harry Potter or the Avatars from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Instead, Whedon made his signature hero little more than a mascot for his crude version of Feminism.
# 2 - The Show Went Too Long
Buffy's creators, understandably enamoured with their creation and emboldened by its success, continued to produce season after season of teen drama, intrigue, and supernatural action. They even planned ahead, slipping in early references to villians and big events in the later seasons. The problem is that if you save the world in season one, you're going to have quite a time topping yourself in season two. Yet Buffy saved the world in season one, and saved the world again... and again... and again... seven times. By the end, the villains are so tiresome, the once-innovative show so formulaic, the fresh characters so stale, the show becomes painful to watch.
.
# 1 - BUFFY
Anthony Stewart Head's character, Giles, is probably the most compelling in the series. Charisma Carpenter's obnoxious, airheaded Cordelia is always worth a laugh. Xander's combination of goofy jokester and loyal terrier works well. Willow is a very good character, but the show's creators had to scratch the whimsical, beautiful nerd kitsch that made Allyson Hannigan a star, since the character was growing up and risked getting stale; plus, they wanted to transform her into a villain; she was never really the same after that. Tara is an endearing character, but instantly forgettable. Dawn and Kennedy have had the honor of being voted onto "Most Annoying Character Ever" lists, but I would argue that even they have their moments.
There is, however, not a single good thing about Buffy. She is immature, bratty, selfish, and (particularly when it comes to her relationships) she is unreasonable, petulant, and unjustifiably argumentative (e.g., when she convinces Angel to have sex with Faith as part of a plot to defeat her, then treats him like garbage for "cheating" on her). I think, probably, Whedon meant to create a stereotype-crushing "strong woman" character, but Buffy ends up being unbearable, and reinforcing many of the worst ideas people have about women generally and feminist women in particular.
Ironically, Buffy's "evil" co-Slayer, Faith, who for the course of one season deserts to the sorcerous Mayor and works as his thug, would have made a much better series protagonist. At the very least, Buffy needed some of Faith's rough pragmatism and relaxed personality. Faith, from the start, is a hero, but a flawed hero who begins to discover how bad she really is, and fix it. This makes her far more likeable, despite her shaky moral compass and erratic behavior, than Buffy, who is set up as a paradigm of virtue, which only works if your concept of virtue is more or less completely upside down.
Origin
I'm a twenty-four year old Tennessean, U.S. Army Tank Crewman, an American, and a believer in limited government, Judeo-Christian morality, national sovereignty, and individual rights to life, liberty, and property. I have a degree in English literature and I'm hoping to start work on a higher degree in History when I finish serving.
I have a six-month old son, and I don't want to leave him with a broken America when I am gone. And if America can't be saved, I want to do everything I can to see it, or some part of it, rebuilt. As I see it, the best way to do that is to win the war of ideas.
I will discuss politics, political philosophy, literature, history, culture (to include, and pardon me if I wretch, "pop" culture), technology, religion, and anything else that seems appropriate.
So now here I am, along with every other dime-store philosopher on the internet, arguing with an empty room.
I have a six-month old son, and I don't want to leave him with a broken America when I am gone. And if America can't be saved, I want to do everything I can to see it, or some part of it, rebuilt. As I see it, the best way to do that is to win the war of ideas.
I will discuss politics, political philosophy, literature, history, culture (to include, and pardon me if I wretch, "pop" culture), technology, religion, and anything else that seems appropriate.
So now here I am, along with every other dime-store philosopher on the internet, arguing with an empty room.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)