Buffy in 2016

This diary was sufficiently misunderstood and caused so much upset that I removed it. So as not to make the comments completely unintelligible, here's the point I was trying (not very successfully, apparently) to make: The pop cultural changes that led to the emergence of female action heroes in the 1990s (example: Buffy/Xena) will play out in such a way as to lead to a different kind of female politician in the 2010s. The new intelligibility of woman-as-hero in the culture will allow these women to take advantage of the JFK hero-20-years-later model, using some story of 1990s heroism the way Kerry or McCain have used their Vietnam stories. For men, such a story gives a middle-aged or even elderly candidate an aura of youthfulness, and it will do the same for women. The youthful-hero-turned-middle-aged-leader female candidates will project an aura of the archetypal Daughter, which will let them slip past the male resistance to power-seeking from candidates who relate through the Wife or Mother archetypes.

•  Why do I think this is going to start arguments?

  Just a disturbance in the Force, I guess.

  by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:24:55 PM PDT

  •  Because you're full of shit, perhaps?

    I need a shower after reading this.  

    by Rich in PA on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM PDT

  •  Rec'd and tipped because

    you make a lot of sense.  Hilary used to be my senator when I lived in NY, and as a senator, she's great.  As a president, I'm ambivalent (I'm ambivalent about Obama too, but the primary here isn't until April).

    But a sister/daughter archetype--that would appeal to women voters also.  What woman doesn't have (or secretly want) a renegade friend?  Someone who pushes all the envelopes, and does it with wit and poise?

    by Youffraita on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:16 PM PDT

•  I miss

  that show so much.

  by taylormattd on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM PDT

  •  yeah, but

    republican freddie, jr.?

    by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:29:37 PM PDT

    •  ew

      is he republican?

      by taylormattd on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM PDT

      •  yep

        years ago, i saw him on leno (yes, a confess- i've watched leno some dozen times- in my life!), and o'lielly came on after him. o'lielly was spewing his garbage, and trying to be buddy buddy with prinze, and he kept telling prinze not to support hillary (this was probably when she was first running for senate), and prinze, trying to assure o'lielly, blurted out that he wouldn't vote for her, that he's a republican. google it and you'll hear about a details magazine article that outed him, adam sandler, and a few others.

        by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:40:20 PM PDT

        •  ick.

          Hopefully he hasn't influenced SMG. I wonder if he's donated. I'll have to check.

          by taylormattd on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:41:57 PM PDT

          •  newsmeat

            has nothing from either of them. armando also once had a nice rant about prinze:

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:44:51 PM PDT

          •  I'm a bit of a Whedonhead...

            And there have been rumors about her being a Republican, though it's possible she just doesn't want to annoy Freddie. I attended a big event hosted Joss Whedon (the creator of "Buffy," among other achievements) with many actors from his shows in 2004. Sarah was not there. Alyson Hannigan (who played Willow) did say that Emma Caulfield (aka Anya the reformed Vengeance Demon) who is a Republican had decided to vote for Kerry, but no mention was made of Sarah.

            So, I'd say she's not in the bag, overall.

            Personally, though I'm not a huge fan of either parent, I'm totally open to Chelsea in 2030 or so.

            by LABobsterofAnaheim on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, me too, taylormatt

    Joss Whedon is a writing hero of mine.

    by JoeW on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM PDT

•  so

  we have a double-standard for the type of women we can elect? smart, wonky types need not apply?

  by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM PDT

  •  that may be true somewhat, the problem

    is the diarist seems okay with this, I'm not.

    by rigso on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM PDT

  •  I don't think that's what pericles meant

    She would have to know policy and be smarter than 90% of the male candidates just to be in the running.

    But the archetype he speaks of would appeal to both sexes: not threatening to men, and seeming like the fun, think-outside-the-box friend that women would love to hang out with.

    Anyway, that's how I read this diary.

    by Youffraita on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:37:27 PM PDT

    •  i'd like us to work

      so that any woman runs on a level playing field with any man. we shouldnt pick what type of woman is acceptable, we should try to expand what is acceptable!

      by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:42:11 PM PDT

      •  Times change

        Right now, if your ambition is to have a female president, that is expanding what is acceptable. Had you asked 30 years ago, the answer would have been a resounding no throughout most of America.

        We will take steps to reduce prejudices among everyone by challenging them little by little to be better than who they are. We can do it and we will. There will be a great deal of resistance along the way, but social expectations and norms change slowly over time. Is America ready for a Black president? Perhaps.

        Similarly, America might be ready for a woman president, but Hillary has been doing everything possible to make herself unpopular and unlikable. Nobody likes whiners or competitors who cannot lose gracefully. And like it or not, fair or otherwise, elections are popularity contests where the most likable often wins, even when the other candidate is smarter.

        by banjolele on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:13:26 PM PDT

        •  actually

          the national polls show her with 70+ approval from democrats, and despite all the negative press, she's polling 45% or above among democrats, nationally. don't take what you read on this site as representative of anything.

          by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM PDT

          •  I'm not going to argue polls

            Lies, damned lies, and statistics, you know.

            But to address your point: I don't doubt that if only Democrats were allowed to vote Hillary would have no difficulty winning. Like I said, America might be ready for a female president. Hillary might be the one. From what I see and hear here in NJ, Hillary is tolerated at best and if she wins it will be because of party line voting or anti-Republican voting... both of which benefit Obama as well.

            by banjolele on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:35:08 PM PDT

            •  and from what i hear

              all over the country, a lot of people genuinely like and respect her.

              by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:36:50 PM PDT

              •  I'm sure they do.

                If they didn't she would have given up by now. She definitely has her strong supporters. I guess the problem I'm seeing is that is all she has. Her poll numbers (yeah, polls... meh) have remained constants in the 40-50% range despite all the other Democrats dropping out. In other words, the supporters she started with, she's kept, but she hasn't really pulled any new ones to her side. She's stagnant.

                If she can't pull Democrats in to support her, how on Earth is she going to pull in the Independents we'll need to win in November? I don't see it.

                The author's point was that someone younger or more likable would be able to expand the party to the point where Democrats would not only win, but with with wide popular support. This hypothetical woman wouldn't be stuck at 40-50%. She would be able to bring a strong military background with a likable personality to the table, and she would be unstoppable.

                by banjolele on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM PDT

      •  In an ideal world you are right

        But this world is far from ideal.  Where I live a bunch of pacifist Christians (read: Amish and Mennonite) vote GOP because their parents did because their parents did because...

        Y'see my point?  It is not entirely about logic.  I wish it were; I have been saying for years that one should vote for the policy wonk (Democratic, of course) but that's if people actually think.  In my personal experience, it's a very rare occurrence.

        by Youffraita on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM PDT

        •  As Mark Twain said:

          "In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination."

          by vacantlook on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:39:00 PM PDT

    •  not threatening to men?

      Bleargh.  I tire of having to watch out for men's fragile egos.  It's not my stinking job!

      I honestly don't care if men are threatened or women need their egos stroked.  Can the candidate do the job?    That's the only question.

      by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:17 PM PDT

      •  that's not the criterion for men

        why would you expect it to be for women?

        by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM PDT

        •  (women are different. pass it on) n/t

          The conventional wisdom will not be denied!
          </snark>

          by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:51:51 PM PDT

      •  Oh, trust me, I firmly believe

        that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.  And she'll get better sex from the bike, too.

        The stupid men with their fucking "fragile" egos nevertheless need to be appeased if we have any hope of getting a woman into power.

        Trust me on this one, grasshopper.

        by Youffraita on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:38:08 PM PDT

    •  honestly, don't know if this character would

      hold true. when a woman becomes non-threatening to men, she becomes something else. weak, for lack of a better word. or sometimes the object of fantasy. or worse, both.

      the whole concept and the fact that people have to sit down and craft a female character "who can make it" is damn depressing, because if you think this only applies to the presidency, you would be wrong.

      by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:52:11 PM PDT

      •  Good point. However...

        Commander Codpiece wasn't a male fantasy?  And you haven't been following the (extensively blogged) "man-crushes" of certain right-of-center pundits?

        by Youffraita on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM PDT

  •  not sure where you get that

    The characters I mentioned are all quite smart, actually.

    The presidential field has always been closed to vast majority of people, male or female. Could a short, bald guy be president? I don't think so.

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM PDT

    •  i'd like for that

      to change. if we so narrow our possible choices for first woman president, we may be ruling out the best candidates. which should be all that matters.

      by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:46:55 PM PDT

      •  I see it as figuring out where to look

        not "narrowing our choices".

        by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:06:42 PM PDT

        •  i think

          we look for the best candidate with the best policies.

          by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:20:31 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, at the national level, it appears

    smart, wonky men need not apply either.

    by tjlord on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM PDT

    •  had gore decided to run

      i think he'd have broken that mold, once and for all!

      by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM PDT

  •  smart, wonky women are perfect for the job...

    provided they don't commit troops by authorizing a war via a blank check war authorization (which concocts lies) w/o even reading the national intelligence estimate.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM PDT

    •  iow, what kind of a gifted wonk

      would vote for the IWR as it was drafted and passed? Certainly not someone that weighed adequately the human angle of engaging in unforced warfare.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:53:01 PM PDT

•  So if Barack Obama were a woman....

  I think one thing this primary election season has taught us is that the country is open to female or minority presidents.  This election, despite the best efforts of the media, has been about who the candidate is, not which demographic boxes contain them.  At least on the Democratic side, which I think better represents where the country is now than the Old White Farts party.

  The times call forth the leader, if we're lucky.  I don't know who the next inspirational leader will look like, but I can bet it won't be another Obama.  It will be someone equally attuned to the needs and the spirit of the times, though, as he seems to be now.  Whether that next leader will be a man or a woman will likely be a coin flip, because after this year I don't think it will matter all that much, just as it doesn't much in downticket races anymore.

  by Dallasdoc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM PDT

  •  Rock on, Dallasdoc.

    I like the way you put things.

    by Compound F on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM PDT

  •  I respectfully disagree

    much of the unwarrented hate that exists out there for Hillary is based in sexism, whether we like it or not.

    by linc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:31:49 PM PDT

    •  Please stop.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      Hillary is not a martyr to patriarchy. She is a victim of her own lousy campaigning (the heavens will open up sarcasm and poor overall sportsmanship) and poor leadership (Health Care? What health care?, AUMF, etc.)

      by banjolele on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM PDT

      •  I didn't claim she was a martyr

        or that she was losing the primary contest because of her sex- I think higher of most democrats.  I was speaking specifically to the unwarrented hillary hate, particularly from the right wing. Maybe you should stop and actually read the comment before replying.

        That sexism exists and would effect an election isn't an extraordinary claim.  Look at this diary- the diarist would vote for a daughter, but not a mother?  WTF?  So the diarist hates his mother and thinks thats an OK determinate for electability?  The proof is right here.

        If this was a diary going on about the archetypes of black men and electability, the diarist would have been ripped to shreds.  The sexist denial here is just as high as it is in the real world, which is sad.

        by linc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:51:35 PM PDT

        •  Yes, you did.

          The diarist's point is that a younger, more dynamic, likable, kick-ass woman with political savvy is more likely to win than an experienced, abrasive woman with a so-so record like Hillary Clinton is.

          Similarly, a younger, more dynamic, likable, kick-ass man (Kennedy) won over an experienced, abrasive man (Nixon). It's not about the sexism bogeyman. It's about charisma. Ann Richards had it even though she was old enough to be my grandmother. Had she been nominated for president, this whole thread would have been irrelevant because she would have set the stage that we're dancing on today. But she didn't.

          This is not sexism. You might be able to argue it's ageism, but you're not. You're berating people for pointing out the obvious: people like charisma. Duh. You might as well howl at the moon for being so bright.

          Most people like winners, not whiners. Most people like candidates who make them feel good, not mock them. Most people want to hang out with the "cool kids"; they don't want to hang out with dorks. It's human nature. Hillary is doing a poor job of making people feel good and like her.

          For you to state that this is about sexism says more about you, your own psychology of victimhood, and your perception of the candidates than it does about this country and its people.

          Unfortunately, you're the one who isn't getting it. People are not voting "against" Hillary because she's a woman, they're voting "against" Hillary because she's a woman who isn't ready to be president due to her poor judgment and weak management skills when compared to Obama. It's simply not the same.

          by banjolele on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:12:17 PM PDT

          •  wow.

            firstly, I have no sense of 'victimhood' but way to repeat the talking points.

            secondly, you completely miss the point, but I think you have the blinders on so it will be pretty hard for you to catch up and I don't care anymore...

            "people like winners, not whiners"  "Most people want to hang out with the cool kids; they don't want to hand out with dorks"  Really? What are you, a seventh grader on a playground?

            If you are a seventh grader, please excuse these comments and does your mommy know you are playing on the internet?

            by linc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:17:29 PM PDT

  •  it matters

    it's just not a deal breaker any more.

    Now there are winning images a woman can project in the downticket races. But they aren't necessarily the same images that would work for a man. In that sense, I think it will matter for decades: a woman will run for office differently than a man.

    Example: One of the things Obama has going for him is his voice. There's a long tradition of spell-binding male orators, and Obama sounds like one. What's a spell-binding female orator sound like? I'm not saying there can't be one, only that the public will be slow to recognize one when she shows up. And I wouldn't know how to train a woman to be one.

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

•  It sucks that women have to deal with the whole

  Ice Queen thing, Queen of mean, whatever, it just sucks, men dont, elected men have been some of the most boring/cold people, but it doesnt hurt them. I like my governor, Pat. Deval, but that was also used against Kerry Healey here in 06, and I'm glad she lost, but I always hated hearing people talk about her like that...

  Saying she needs to be young, nice, more like a daughter than a nagging wife or mother, is sad, but I think you might be on to something, that said, you seem OK with this, which also sucks, and I don't know why your getting recs because of it...

  (I'm a guy BTW)

  by rigso on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM PDT

  •  Not too old. Not too young.

    Firm, yet not threatening.  Not emotional, but not cold.  yadda, yadda, yadda.

    yuck.

    by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM PDT

    •  sounds like most women should just throw in the

      towel . . .

      if they just weren't born "right".

      by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:55:15 PM PDT

      •  most men too

        Only one person every four years makes it to the White House. All the stars have to align. We'd like to think that anybody can be president. But it's never been true.

        by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:04:08 PM PDT

      •  Do what the beauty contestants do

        Hire an image consultant, a voice coach and a speech coach and so on.

        It's quite possible to be exactly who the public wants you to be - the drawback is that it is a full time job.
        ;-)

        by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:07:24 PM PDT

        •  lol!~

          management bores the hell out of me, so maintaining myself to suit others' idea of what i should be, would last all of about 5 minutes  ;-)

          by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM PDT

  •  men who don't fit a leader archetype

    don't get elected either.

    And who said anything about nice?

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM PDT

    •  explain Bush ;)

      by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:54:08 PM PDT

      •  look at the image, not the man

        The image created around Bush in 2000 had a lot of leadership qualities. And he had the whole heir-to-the-throne thing going.

        by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:59:52 PM PDT

        •  hmmm . . . maybe i had the wrong glasses on

          but leader was NOT what he appeared to me in 2000. and standing next to Gore?

          and the heir-to-the-throne thing i guess just didn't work for me. hmmm, maybe i was just too jaded? i really couldn't see how people thought he could lead a country~

          by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM PDT

          •  Bush was perceived as being likable

            Gore was a wooden log.
            Kerry was a dork.

            Bush was the likable frat guy who wasn't a nerdling geek. Americans generally don't appreciate smart guys (unless they've got some other mitigating cool factor such as money, and even that doesn't help Bill Gates become likable), and smart women have it only a little bit easier.

            by banjolele on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:17:40 PM PDT

          •  I didn't vote for him either

            But the people who did (less than voted for Gore, remember), thought he fit a leader archetype. Remember the whole uniter-not-a-divider thing? And how he was supposed to have worked so well with Democrats in Austin? And turned around the Texas schools?

            Yeah, it was all bogus. But that's what people voted for, not the pitiful human being that Bush actually is.

            by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:18:29 PM PDT

            •  yeah, i think my brain may have been more

              involved  ;)

              i was having a bit of a problem with his management background, among other things. and when i look for a leader, i really would like someone smarter than me, who can bring something to the table and has a spine. "aw, shucks!" just doesn't do it for me ;)

              by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:21:53 PM PDT

•  Pat Schroader would have made a decent president

  The thing is that she didn't get enough support and withdrew too early.

  The difference between Shroader and Clinton is that Pat got to where she was by herself, not on her husband's coattails.

  by YoursTruly on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:36:29 PM PDT

  •  I was ready to vote for her.

    Yet some assume I'm a male chauvinist pig because I never considered voting for Hillary in the primary.

    Frankly, I'm a little irritated at people who vote based solely on genitalia or skin pigmentation. It's the person, stupid.

    by LABobsterofAnaheim on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:03:30 PM PDT

  •  me too!

    Pat Schroader could still get my vote and quickly.
    Thanks Pericles, I particularly liked: " A leader is a  hero with twenty years of experience."  :)
    

    by Parthenia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:53:02 PM PDT

•  I'd like to see the Obama-Girl run for office

  Maybe even President, someday.

  by steelman on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:36:34 PM PDT

  •  I'm hoping this is a very subtle joke

    It is, isn't it?

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:53:41 PM PDT

    •  yes

      by steelman on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:04:17 PM PDT

•  Wrong archetype.

  Slayers are loners, because their job is too dangerous for mere mortals.   And Slayers didn't ask for the job, they just got it.  After all, when the vamps decide that they better off you, just in case, you either decide to use your gifts or set the record for the shortest career as a Slayer.

  Slayers attract people partly because people want to support them, but often because people figure their chances of survival are better hanging out with the Slayer than off on their own.

  Joss Whedon wrote a mean show.  But he wasn't writing about politics, he was writing about the human condition.

  by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I know.

    But he wasn't writing about politics, he was writing about the human condition.

    I found myself wishing there was more of a connection, particularly the latter half of the last season, just when the war in Iraq was starting, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer was ending.

    by homoaffectional on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:44:03 PM PDT

  •  Of course, Buffy changed all that.

    Yeah, I'm going totally into the show, so if by any chance you haven't seen the show and want to avoid spoilers don't read my comments.  Now, to my points.

    Slayers were loners, but Buffy changed that.  She fought back against the system created by the Shadowmen ("Get It Done") and maintained by the Watchers' Council, even to at one point tell the head of the Watchers' Council that they were "pretty much watching Masterpiece Theater without her" ("Checkpoint").  And in her pushing back against that long maintained rigidity of the lone slayer, Buffy chose to keep her friends.  Her doing so was even offensive to the spirit of the first slayer ("Restless").  The assumed loneliness of the Slayer was even used by The First Evil to taunt Buffy, and it was in that moment that she made the final step to break that long line of loneliness that past Slayers had lived in ("Chosen").

    And so, Buffy through Willow manipulating the magic of the Slayers' Scythe activated every girl who was born with the potential to be the next Slayer.  She presented this to the potential Slayers gathered in Sunnydale to fight The First as a choice.  No girl would now ever be forced to be the one and only Slayer chosen by some other force and made to fight alone.  They're legion now; the canon "Buffy Season Eight" comic series that Joss Whedon is writing states that they've identified 1800 Slayers that they've been able to find with almost 500 of them working with Buffy et al in 10 squads.

    The transformation that occurs in Buffy to conclude the tv show was Buffy's realization that the "reality" of a Slayer being alone was a falsehood created by the Shadowmen because they feared the Slayer and wanted to control her.  Buffy realized that she could choose to throw off that loneliness and embrace others.  She realized that despite all the Slayer lore and instruction she had received over the years telling her that the Slayer powers were hers alone until she died, the Slayer powers weren't just hers, they belonged to Faith and to every potential Slayer, should they choose to pick up the mantle and fight against the forces of evil.  And I think that's a very democratic message, personally.  And it's most definitely an empowering message.

    by vacantlook on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM PDT

  •  That is so, so funny!

    thank you.

    by linc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:17:38 PM PDT

•  Amos and Andy

  I can't help but wonder how fast autoban would kick in from the donut overdose I'd get if I wrote a diary about Obama and a stereotype black show, like Amos and Andy, or Sanford and Son...but it's OK to talk about a US Senator in terms of Buffy?

  by YatPundit on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM PDT

  •  buffy was sterotype breaking

    So it would be more like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" than "Amos and Andy".

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:49:05 PM PDT

    •  No she wasn't.

      Read a few comic books.  There are all manner of different female heroes from the ones that work alone(Catwoman) to the ones that work as a team(Birds of Prey).  There are bookish ones, shy ones, brassy ones, saucy ones, all types.

      There's even Thessaly, who really is a witch.  She first showed up in A Game of You, replete with many female characters including a pre-op transexual and a lesbian couple.   Concerned Mothers of America threatened to boycott DC Comics and readers responded by buying extra copies to give to their friends.  It was my first real introduction to right wing bullying tactics - laughable ones actually since a boycott of a tiny organization like CMA was much of a threat.

      by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:05:44 PM PDT

      •  "was not"

        instead of was.

        Readers just did a little mental calculus.  How many Concerned Mothers probably bought comic books?  The loss of a few dozen customers(generous estimate) wasn't even going to register.

        by Fabian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:10:28 PM PDT

      •  you changed media on me

        I remember the letters column editor laughing at the idea that when the boycott was over the concerned mothers would go back to buying "Sandman".

        On TV, Buffy was stereotype breaking. She was a real action hero, not a camp heroine.

        by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:12:40 PM PDT

      •  and i used to protect their image, lol!~

        i did a stint with DC and spent a bit of time making sure the image that was put out in the product market wasn't just some sexpot.

        product meetings could get kinda festive as i worked to get the artists to see the error of their ways . .   lol!~

        by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:18:29 PM PDT

        •  Did you get them to admit that

          crotch shots did not serve story telling?

          Of course, some of my favorite moments in comics were poking fun at certain tendencies.  When Bev/Fire decided to change her costume to some a little more provocative, it made some of her male team mates uncomfortable.  "Isn't that a little small?" one said, referring to her bustier which did, indeed seem to be a couple sizes short.

          And Guy Gardner, whose idea of a first date with a shy Ice was going to an adult(porn) theatre!  There's probably women out here that have met more Guy Gardners than boy scout Supermen.

          And my all time favorite - my prebagged issue of Sandman, sold in a sealed bag because there was a nude Barbie illustration.  No naughty bits were identifiable, the context and pose were completely free of sexual content - but she had no clothes on!  Everyone rolled their eyes and agreed it was silly.

          by Fabian on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:48 AM PDT

•  Athena for president

  but for VP: Apollo?
  or Dionysius?

  by juancito on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:49:59 PM PDT

  •  (gasp) A cylon for president?!

    Oh wait ... guess you're not talking about Battlestar Galactica. Though I would most certainly support Apollo for VP. Rawr!

    by SundayHighway on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:27:48 PM PDT

•  Lisa Simpson.

  http://www.facebook.com/...

  

  by Brainwrap on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM PDT

•  Yeah, not so much. Ann Richards

  would have made a great president. This Ann Richards, I mean. Tough, smart, funny, and wouldn't it be great to see her on an official state visit to Saudi Arabia? Fighting for single-payer health care? Raising the minimum wage?

  And, let's face it, she's no female action hero. She's  like, your female action grandma. Let her call a middle east peace conference at Camp David. At least all the participants would wipe their feet coming in.

  No, I disagree with the diarist. And if you insist on someone from the Buffyverse as POTUS, I'd suggest Angel, who exercised authority well in season 5, managing the LA office of Wolfram & Hart.

  by Jacques on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:53:45 PM PDT

  •  Except that it ended in an apocalypse n/t :)

    by LABobsterofAnaheim on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:05:00 PM PDT

    •  Picky, picky picky...

      by Jacques on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:11:13 PM PDT

  •  If we step outside of the Buffyverse...

    ...into the greater Whedonverse, I could see someone like Inara Serra from Firefly as president.

    by vacantlook on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM PDT

•  Your fetish is both

  interesting and disgusting at the same time.  I am saddened that is kind of crap is still acceptable in this community.

  If this was a post about the archetypes of black men, you would have been ripped to shreds.

  by linc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:22:55 PM PDT

  •  probably, but if a black man is serious

    about running for president, he's got to think about what archetypes he's embodying for the general public. Why do you think the picture of Obama in Somalian costume is making waves today?

    I guarantee you that when Obama was first entering public life and deciding how to cut his hair and how to dress, he thought about what effect those things would have on people. He could have worn dreadlocks or a big afro -- he decided not to. His speech cadences resemble Martin Luther King. That's probably intentional.

    None of that has anything to do with his ability or his policies. But it's important.

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:35:01 PM PDT

•  Persephone vs Demeter

  No clear idea of what a powerful woman looks like? Say what? How about Athena, Hecate, Kali, Inanna, Isis, etc. These are classic archetypes. You happen to prefer the daughter over the mother. Did you forget the daughter is going to turn into the mother and the crone?

  You forgot to mention Emma Peel (Diana Rigg) from the Avengers. Intelligent, witty, deadly and stunning in her head to toe black leather. I'd have no trouble seeing her in a national security briefing.

  by solesse413 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:50:04 PM PDT

  •  sadly, I grew up Emma-less

    My home town only had two TV stations.

    Being mortal, I expect to be dead by the time the daughter becomes the crone.

    I always pictured Athena as a behind-the-scenes operator. (Zeus always thought it was his idea.) And I don't think we're ready for a Kali or Hecate administration.

    So, how would someone run as Isis or Inanna? Or how would we recognize someone who did?

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:25:19 PM PDT

    •  yikes, you're right

      a Kali or Hecate administration, err. :D

      by solesse413 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:29:55 PM PDT

•  Good lord.

  I don't think I've ever read such a shallow diary.

  Buffy.  Image.  Archetypes.  Right.

  You're not really talking about anything other than virtually crafting a woman to suit men.

  I believe men are smarter than that.

  Except for you, perhaps.

  What an unbelievably creepy fantasy you've set out here.

  Good luck to you.  I think you'll need it.

  by Nightprowlkitty on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM PDT

  •  my creepy fantasy

    is that a woman with a heroic story to tell gets elected president in the not-too-distant future. I'm fantasizing that the failure of the Clinton campaign doesn't mean that women are unelectable.

    Think about what the Democratic Party did when it went looking for Iraq War vets to run for Congress in 2006. They knew the image problems Democrats face and went looking for people whose stories solve those image problems. Same kind of thinking.

    by Pericles on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:37:52 PM PDT

    •  eh ...

      ... I don't see that as a valid comparison at all.  You're speaking of a fictitious character here, not war vets.

      Sorry, just sounds like a very creepy fantasy ... and your "justification" for it is even more creepy -- that men are so foolish as to resent the kind of woman Hillary is.

      I don't think women are unelectable.

      by Nightprowlkitty on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:14:36 AM PDT

•  Janet Napolitano

  Already a governor. Would be ready in 2016.

  But history shows that its tough for progressive women to win in the head of state in large industrialized countries. Pretty much every woman who has won in a large industrialized country has been a conservative. So there is the possiblity that Condoleeza Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchingson or that governor from Alaska will be the first woman president.

  by BlueTide on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:41:32 PM PDT