?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Just in case any of you are feeling too loyal to the original Battlestar Galactica to check out the new series (although I cannot for the life of imagine why that would be, as the original was so cheesy that I avoided it as a 10 year-old) I give you the original Starbuck, whimpering about the new Starbuck being recast as a woman. Washed up, bigoted asshat.

The new Starbuck, portrayed by the lovely Katee Sackhoff? Hot as hell. And a much more interesting take on the character, too boot.

I'll be over here, handing out babies, as we women do. Jebus.

Comments

chadu
Jan. 19th, 2005 05:30 am (UTC)
And if he sees this as a "symbolic castration" then it follows that he buys into the notion of women as castrated men.

No, that's not where I think he's at. It's not "symbolic castration of a male character by changing it to a female one" it's "symbolic castration of my character/me by having any changes to the Starbuck character."

I honestly think that even if the new Starbuck had been male -- but a non-womanizer, non-cigar smoker, non-con man -- he'd feel the same way. He's seeing his performance, his character-work, his own personal foibles (apparently, according to what he says in the text, hard-fought against the network execs at the time of the original show) being undercut. . . and that, wrongly, I think.

Is he anti-authoritarian, or is he a backward, chauvinistic neanderthal? He can't be both.

Disagree. I can't speak about Dirk Benedict, but I've known backward, anti-authoritarian chauvinistic neanderthals.

I respect your feelings in the matter, but I am unwilling to let him off the hook, even a little.

Oh, I don't mean to let him off the hook; not at all. This is not an apologia for an idiot. While I think I see what triggered his rage and caused him to spew venom all over our screen, the things he said are deliberately spiteful and pathetic.

Just because he feels he's been hurt does not give him license to hurt others. Being a victim of something is not a Get Out of Jail free card for being a jerk or worse.

He's lashing out, thus, my pity. But my feeling sorry for him doesn't excuse his words, which anger and upset me. As I say above, while I can understand what set him off, understanding doesn't make it okay.

(I can feel pity and anger in regard to someone at the same time; maybe I'm just weird.)

CU
_blackjack_
Jan. 19th, 2005 08:14 am (UTC)
I can't speak about Dirk Benedict, but I've known backward, anti-authoritarian chauvinistic neanderthals.

Such people generally only THINK they are anti-authoritarian, unable to realize that their backwards attitudes actually serve the interests of those in power.
chadu
Jan. 19th, 2005 02:42 pm (UTC)
Oh, agreed.

For a related example, GWB touts himself (and many of his followers buy into the myth) as "not a Beltway insider" when his party controls all three branches of government.

So, when very conservative Republicans elsewhere rail against the "fat cats in Washington" that they're against, I just have to shake my head.

CU
fenriss
Jan. 19th, 2005 02:47 pm (UTC)
Exactly what I'm trying to say! Sure, there are plenty of Fox News watching morons who like to think they're fighting "the power" by being insensitive and retrogressive, but it's bullshit. Over the last two decades, the Right has cleverly built this fiction around the idea that bigotry is radical. It's not. It just plays right into the hands of the moneyed elite who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they've always been.
chadu
Jan. 19th, 2005 03:06 pm (UTC)
Bingo.

However -- and this is a big however -- these sorts of provincial/bigoted opinions often held in the red states stem from something very, very real: fears. Fear of the unknown, fear of the strange, fear of the new, fear of the smarter/stronger/faster/sneakier.

Some of the most racist folks I know have never met, spoke to, or even seen in person apart from television and the movies people different than themselves.

Fear disappears with sufficient (positive) exposure. Many folks in the heartland never get that exposure, and thus see much of the mass-media pro-diversity message as some sort of attempt at mind control being imposed on them. Thus, reactionary and stupid bullshit.

CU

CU
fenriss
Jan. 19th, 2005 02:46 pm (UTC)
I'm perfectly capable of feeling pity and anger at once. I feel that way toward heroin addicts and emotional cripples who don't understand how to have relationships with people. I do not feel that way toward self-important jerks who are all out of sorts because their privileged status has been taken away.

So, he's not a sex symbol anymore? He's threatened by strong, sexy women who can hold their own? Tough shit. If the original Apollo can join in the fun, and appreciate a new sexual paradigm in which sometimes the girls get to be aggressive (which he clearly can, per the SciFi Lowdown last week) why can't Benedict?
chadu
Jan. 19th, 2005 02:58 pm (UTC)
I do not feel that way toward self-important jerks who are all out of sorts because their privileged status has been taken away.

Ah, good point.

I'm downgrading "pity" to simple "feel mildly bad," then.

He's threatened by strong, sexy women who can hold their own?

See, this is the part that I'm not sure he's saying. In my read of the article, he's not talking about strong, sexy women -- or even the actual new Starbuck character -- at all. He doesn't seem to address really anything about the actresses' portrayal -- strong, weak, beef-flavored, polka-dotted, whatever. It looks to me like he's railing about the concept of Starbuck being a woman, rather than the reality, if you see what I'm saying.

After all, reading the text, he's talking far more about himself than Sackhoff. Lots of "I" and "me" statements.

Again, I don't know if he's threatened by women, but I think it's clear he's threatened here by loss of identity. His response to this, however, is disgustingly misogynistic.

If the original Apollo can join in the fun, and appreciate a new sexual paradigm in which sometimes the girls get to be aggressive (which he clearly can, per the SciFi Lowdown last week) why can't Benedict?

Oh, it's obvious once you think about it, isn't it? Because Hatch is all about BG, while Benedict is all about Benedict.

CU
fenriss
Jan. 19th, 2005 03:09 pm (UTC)
I'm downgrading "pity" to simple "feel mildly bad," then

Fair enough :)

Again, I don't know if he's threatened by women, but I think it's clear he's threatened here by loss of identity.

That's possible. Whether or not he's actually threatened by women is, I admit, just conjecture on my part. I'd bet money though.

Oh, it's obvious once you think about it, isn't it? Because Hatch is all about BG, while Benedict is all about Benedict.

Yep. Asshat.
chadu
Jan. 19th, 2005 03:37 pm (UTC)
Whether or not he's actually threatened by women is, I admit, just conjecture on my part. I'd bet money though.

No bet.

Just look at his main character roles -- Starbuck and Face. Both are cigar-chomping (Freudian much?), handsome/charming, lying, egotistical, womanizing opportunists, and -- by his own admission -- essentially elements of his own personality.

I'm just saying his woman issues are a contributing factor rather than a primary factor in this situation.

Asshat.

Word.

CU

Profile

ghost
fenriss
Fenriss

Latest Month

February 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner