Full Series A Gender-Neutral Galaxy?

Praenomen Cognomen, interesting post -- thank you.

"(1) Remember that they're not so much embodying a single ideal, as much as they're trying to please a lot of different people. You know there's such a thing as "sex-positive" feminism, right? Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, it's unwise to look at your entertainment as something only meant to please your own personal sensibilities.* "

It's not the idealization of a particular type of female form that bothers me. It's the fact that the female form is being objectified at all on a show that claims to be progressive (i.e., that wants to create a more welcoming environment for female fans). The fact that such depictions are relatively brief and infrequent doesn't change the fact that they are there, without a male equivalent (that I can recall) to create a sense of balance.

I do feel more connected to art that has a progressive sensibility.

"(2) I think it makes perfect sense that Twi'leks represent a sexually-open culture. I don't see anything wrong with that. In the current canon, the Twi'lek slave trade has been excised, so it doesn't have that psychological darkness to it. Lord knows there are cultures who are regarded as more sexually-open (or just generally sexually strange... *ahem* Japanese used underwear vending machines, I'm looking at you). The dancers in the Hutt palace are shown not to be slaves, but showgirls. Can you tell me specifically what's wrong with that? Can you prove that they don't actually want to do it? Because there are showgirls in real life who love what they do. This is a theoretical question, mind you---I don't know where I stand---but there are people who feel this way, and it's a valid justification. I think it's fair to say that it could seem anti-women to say that semi-sexualized content is wrong, or to say that only women get to animate them. If it's right, it's right for everyone to acknowledge that, regardless of gender."

Is it only the Twi'lek females who are "sexually open"? Where are the dancing Twi'lek males? And isn't it interesting that I even have to ask this question?

"(3) Beyond that, you also have to examine the "seedy underbelly" reality of it. Even if there's an internal justification for it, most of these scenes surround environments which are morally ambiguous, at best. The bottom line: It's not meant to depict a perfect world. A rich world needs good examples and bad examples. Not everything on screen is a moral endorsement; if that were true, the show would also advocate war and violence."

I'm all for depicting the seediest of underbellies, if it will advance the story and enhance the show. But why do these environments always seem to be designed to entertain men? Where are the female crime lords and their provocative entourages?

Resorting to outdated gender roles -- even fleetingly, or in the background -- hampers TCW slightly. These depictions feel like a wink and a nod to a certain segment of the fan base: less like storytelling and more like pandering. They are the one aspect of an otherwise-brilliant show that I found distracting.

 

That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that there are sex-positive feminists out there, so being super repressed---awkwardly so, to the point of eliminating the slightest hint of sexuality even in liberated environments where it actually makes sense---is not in line with their goal of trying to satisfy everyone's ideals to a reasonable extent. The solution is to portray these dancers with an overt sexuality, but not in such a way that they're being coerced into that sexuality. No one is being compromised, and in-universe, one could reasonably assume that these are characters acting of their own free will.

I also have to say, I think it shows a lot of naivete on your part that you assume to speak for all female fans. I know many women who consider themselves sex-positive feminists, and would say that the sexual repression you advocate is actually anti-progressive. The idea behind that reasoning is that men have a responsibility to handle their ****, and that assuming no one is coerced into their sexuality, objectification only happens in the eye of the beholder, not the one creating the portrayal.

Saying sensationalized things like "Isn't it interesting that I even have to ask this question?" might work on some people, but it doesn't work on me. What you're saying is not rooted in the reality of gender issues. Gender neutrality isn't about whether you play with cars or barbies, and it's not about whose sexuality is exemplified in which manner. It's about not making assumptions based on gender, whether someone is behaving unconventionally or conventionally. In its ideal state, gender neutrality doesn't just protect people who deviate from the norm, but also protects the human right of a man to like sports or a woman to be a housewife. It doesn't overcompensate. That's why a cultural gender gap is a perfectly acceptable thing, as long as everyone is acting of their own free will and that culture is maintained organically, without people pressuring one another into maintaining it. Creating a culture with common differences between males and females is not bigoted, it's realistic, and it's not inherently wrong. If a producer said, "Hera can't be a fully-clothed pilot, she's a Twi'lek," then you'd have a point, but that's not the case. Hell, for that matter, someone might have said that in-universe, and in the situations where that gender struggle does exist it only makes the setting more relatable.

Gardulla the Hutt is established as doing something similar with the Gamorrean Guards (at least ostensibly) when Sy Snootles says, "Gardulla wants to know which one of you is stronger." If Jabba had a thing for Yarna d'al Gargan, how do you know Gardulla wouldn't have a reputation for sexualizing the Gamorreans? (Speaking of which, ****ing Sy Snootles, man... talk about a classic portrayal of a femme fatale coming from completely out of left field.)

Anyway, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In the particularly seedy instances of this, the show can't tell stories about how people deal with fringe patriarchal organizations AND depict a perfect, non-patriarchal world. The presence of conflict, of not everything being perfect, even in the background corners of the setting, is necessary for a show to have any impact whatsoever, even on the small level which TCW does. That is all there is to it. There's no getting around that. Your idea of what constitutes "advancing the story or enhancing the show" seems to be arbitrarily fit around your preconceived notions about sexuality. My point is, the rule system which you believe isn't necessarily the same as the rule system someone else believes in, but that doesn't mean they don't have a rule system of their own. Believing only in your own personal idea of feminism and seeing everything else as an oversight is like Christians claiming that atheists don't have a moral code. It's self-centered and false.

EDIT: I didn't mean to sound harsh, but I really believe that the only way for us to get along is to realize that different people have perspectives which are different but not necessarily unequal in value. I ache when I see someone subscribe to one ideology alone and assume that everything outside that is malicious or thoughtless; you have to give them some credit. I think someone else made that point, that this was an incredibly well-intentioned group of people, and that doesn't mean that something which rubs you the wrong way was malicious or even ignorant. It could simply be more open-minded than your own perspective. Don't get caught in the tide of a single way of thinking... it never did anyone any good.

I'm sorry, but you're really reaching there. You can't tell me the showgirls from Hunt for Ziro didn't enjoy what they were doing. In some cases, yes, but in most of those cases it suits the setting.

Personally, I'm all for these little doses of realistic, barely-un-PC color in an otherwise fairly sterile show.

 

Ah, well Jabba's palace... yeah. But he was a despot and a bad dude, after all. In fact, the idea of the feminine culture of Ryloth being exploited by bad folks from offworld actually echoes the real-world issues of underground sex trafficking; it starts out safe in places where the sex trade is protected, but winds up getting dangerous when people leave their protected environment. I dunno, I mean, it's dark, but I think it's valid.

And anyway, in TCW, I think it was pretty much depicted as a free-will thing across the board. I get why that scene is slipping a lot of peoples' minds, though... I just happen to have a soft spot for the episode.

 

Until I see a Gamorrean wearing a thong, I won't be convinced that Gardulla's interest in them was anything other than purely professional.

 

Though when I was considering Praenomen's point, I had the showgirl dancers from TCW's HFZ episode in my mind, reading your reply, I thought maybe you were referencing Jabba and his slave dancers.


Incidentally, "blocked anything related to Ziro from [your] mind"?

How could you? He was great!



No? Not so much?


**sheepishly** I liked him.




By the way, Praenomen Cognomen, though this may not exactly be the appropriate forum, since this is the first I've seen you post in a while, I waned to mention, I hope everything with the delivery/birth of your child went well and that you're enjoying being a Daddy?

It's the ride of a lifetime, yes?

 

Whoa now, this is some misapplied logic. Masculine sex appeal and feminine sex appeal are different beasts. Some ladies like dudes beating each other up; that was the intent of Snootles using that trope in her manipulations in the first place. It'd be convenient to deny that, but it is a thing that exists. Sorry, but if you'd responded to my overall argument I'd buy your point much more willingly; as it is, it's just oversimplified.

Oh man, it's nuts. My wife's a naturally maternal character, so it's been strange to find my place, and I would be lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to communication skills; maybe it's too honest to say, but I actually found this Don Draper quote proved very true in my case:

"I only ever wanted to be the man who loves children. But from the moment they’re born, that baby comes out and you act proud and excited, hand out cigars. But you don’t feel anything. Especially if you had a difficult childhood. You want to love them but you don’t. And the fact that you’re faking that feeling makes you wonder if your own father had the same problem. Then one day they get older, and you see them do something and you feel that feeling that you were pretending to have. And it feels like your heart is going to explode."

It obviously didn't take so long, but when she first smiled and then laughed, I was like, "OK... this isn't just a jar of goo... this is a person. I can do this." Haha.

 

I'm not ignorant of those things. I'm saying that characters ethnicities have never interested me.

 

So you're aware of the privileged status of white heterosexual males, and yet are okay with no one else ever getting represented as a main character? I can't make you explain that, but it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

I think "no one else" is a bit of exaggeration. I also think the importance of the main character's ethnicity is overrated, but I'd be genuinely interested to hear a perspective from one of the ethnic minorities.

 

I don't think "no one else" is that much of an exaggeration, Ep. IV has white people only.

 

But not "white heterosexual males," and "no one else ever getting represented as a main character." I think that was the point he was citing as an exaggeration (which, to be fair, surely it was).

 

That's why I said it's not much of an exaggeration, as opposed to saying it was not an exaggeration at all. All of the main characters are heterosexual and white, one is not a male. I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.