« Oh, Darn, That’s Too Bad, Or Something | Main | Worst Bush Moments: #1, “Mission Accomplished” »
What Did I Do To Deserve This?
By Jeff Fecke | January 19, 2009
I haven’t been this good, have I? I mean, what wonderful thing did I do to have Dirk Benedict, best known as Templeton “Face” Peck on The A Team and Lt. Starbuck on the original Battlestar Galactica.
‘Tis the latter role that has Dirk all hot and bothered. You see, as you may have heard, there’s a new version of Battlestar Galactica, which, unlike the orignial, is big on plot and character development and stuff. And while the series have some basic similarities — some characters carry over between shows, for example — the take on the characters is radically different. For one thing, in the original series, the characters were one-dimensional, while in the reimagined series, the characters are three-dimensional. Crazy, huh?
No character in the new series is more multidimensional than Starbuck. Starbuck is tough, tormented by visions, afraid that those visions are leading humanity to their doom. But Starbuck is also a phenomenal pilot, although at times, a big pain to superior officers.
Starbuck is also a woman — and that’s got Benedict’s knickers in a twist. Because he totally isn’t a woman. And he blames the liberal feminist conspiracy for making his character into a girl:
Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn’t think so. “One more cigar and he’s fired,” they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show. “We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud.” You see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially young men. How they “knew” this was never revealed. And they didn’t stop there. “If Dirk doesn’t quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to get her in bed, he’s fired.” This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality, treating women like “sex objects.” I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they wouldn’t have it. I wouldn’t have it any other way, or rather Starbuck wouldn’t. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage proposals.
[...]
Witness the “re-imagined” “Battlestar Galactica,” bleak, miserable, despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the complete change in the politics and morality of today’s world, as opposed to the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire (Starbuck’s Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad he’s in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has not been so lucky. He’s not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world of cancelled TV characters.
“Re-imagining”, they call it. “Un-imagining” is more accurate. To take what once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are and who the bad are. That is being “judgmental,” taking sides, and that kind of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original “Battlestar Galactica.”
Yes, in the original BSG, men were men, women were sex objects, and everything was either good or evil, just like God meant it. In the new BSG, things are actually nuanced. Decisions have consequences. And while nobody — not even a good chunk of the Cylons — think they were right to commit genocide, there’s increasing evidence that the Cylons might not have fired the first shot, and as we found out last week, the Cylons themselves have endured genocide.
In short, it’s like the real world — messy, complex, and not easily categorized.
Dirk blames women:
One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of “Battlestar Galactica” everything is female driven. The male characters, from Adama on down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not about to take it any more.
And this proves that Dirk hasn’t watched the show; every character on the show, male and female, has had moments of doubt. Admiral Bill Adama came close to breaking down last week, and was only able to pull it together and get the fleet righted after a good talking-to by his friend (and Cylon) Saul Tigh. Meanwhile, President Laura Roslin did break down, burning the pages of her beloved prophecies, refusing to talk to the press, leaving the heavy lifting to former Acting President Lee Adama — who despite his worries, stepped up and acted decisively.
Of course, the Admiral and Lee and Tigh have had their doubts, too, and their moments of weakness. This, of course, is why the show is worth watching — because the characters aren’t cardboard cutouts. They’re real.
But this is all prologue. Dirk isn’t really upset that the new BSG has depth and humanity and dischord, like the best of art. No, what he’s upset with is that his analog in the new series is a girl:
The best minds in the world of un-imagination doubled their intake of Double Soy Latte’s as they gathered in their smoke-free offices to curse the day that this chauvinistic Viper Pilot was allowed to be. But never under-estimate the power of the un-imaginative mind when it encounters an obstacle (character) it subconsciously loathes. ”Re-inspiration” struck. Starbuck would go the way of most men in today’s society. Starbuck would become “Stardoe.”
Heh. Groan.
What the Suits of yesteryear had been incapable of doing to Starbuck 25 years ago was accomplished quicker than you can say orchiectomy. Much quicker, as in, “Frak! Gonads Gone!”
And the word went out to all the Suits in all the smoke-free offices throughout the land of Un-imagination, “Starbuck is dead. Long live Stardoe!”
I’m not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it “resonates” more. Perhaps that’s the point. I’m not sure.
What I am sure of is this…
Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women “hand out” babies. And thus the world for thousands of years has gone’ round.
Oh, kill me now. Women are vulnerable, men are tough, and there’s no way that it could be otherwise. Except…
…except I’ve had the privilege of watching Katee Sackhoff play Capt. Kara “Starbuck” Thrace these last few years. (That’s gotta gall you, Dirk — she outranks you, doesn’t she?) And you know what? Her Starbuck is twice the man your Starbuck was; hell, she’s twice the woman too, and twice the human — even if she isn’t human, which, irony of ironies, may be the case.
The character of Kara Thrace isn’t just a lovable rogue looking to score — though she does manage to get with many of the hottest men in the fleet, including a pro athlete, Lee Adama, and the villainous (yet sexy and received-English-accented) Gaius Baltar — but she’s also tormented. She’s tough — easily the toughest pilot in the fleet. But she blames herself for the death of Lee’s brother, is still dealing with the abuse she suffered as a child, and has visions of leading her people out of the wilderness — yet has heard prophecy that she will lead her people to their doom. Unlike Lt. Starbuck, who was essentially a cardboard cutout, Capt. Thrace is a fully realized, human character. One that would work, incidentally, if she was a he.
Because of course, there are plenty of women fighting (and dying) for our country. Plenty of women working in the real world. Plenty of women flirting with, and trying to hook up with, someone tonight. Plenty of women who aren’t looking to hand out babies, and are happy to smoke a cigar. Plenty of women, you see, who are like plenty of men.
And of course, there are an awful lot of men out there who find themselves plagued by doubt sometimes. But Benedict doesn’t want to see them. Because in his mind, he was playing a man’s man, a guy who was the apotheosis of tough guy. And it’s got to hurt him that in a fair fight, Katee Sackhoff’s Starbuck could kick his Starbuck’s ass. But she could, every single time, in any fight from piloting to boxing to painting to acting. Stop blaming your inadequacies on feminism, Dirk. It’s really just you.
Topics: Feminism | 11 Comments »
January 20th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Jeff wrote:
There’s the feminist ideology again: “We’re just about identical, men and women. This feminine/masculine stuff, it’s so 1980s. Get with it, women can be feminine AND smoke a cigar, AND be sexually assertive, AND be military tough, AND be good mothers who simultaneously head up mammoth organizations as power brokers, AND! AND! AND! AND! AND,” ad infinitum.
No, they can’t be both feminine and also be all those things. No, they can’t. But of course, they CAN be all those things and be masculine women (which is what such feminists pine to be anyway, especially after they finish sipping their double soy lattes and inspiration strikes).
You want to be feminine? Learn these two things:
1. There is no shame in being feminine, despite the heaps of it that feminists rain down on the female masses.
2. To be feminine is to be nurturing — not to kick ass, not to defeat cylons, not to dominate board rooms (or command-and-control centers), but rather to nurture.
You can’t have it all, ladies. At some point, when you’ve beaten down all the obstacles and have proven yourself more of a man than the men you imagine you have defeated, somewhere along the way, your femininity got left behind.
All this talk about “have it all” empowerment feminism is simply feminist claptrap, based on ideology, dogma, and especially a campaign of shame against traditionally feminine women. How you could actually promote the idea that this contrived version of the Super Woman is somehow “real” and “three dimensional” — how you could sincerely believe in this myth baffles me, Jeff. There’s nothing “real” about it. What I think of when I hear all these grandiose feminist platitudes of Super Women who can “have it all” are those dramatic utopian statues and sculptures, commonly found in totalitarian Germany and Russia. Like this one.
What would truly be REAL is a depiction of reality. Men head up countries, corporations, military divisions. MEN do. Sure, there are a few women that do these things too — but they are still well in the minority (not truly “Plenty,” as you asserted, Jeff). To ignore this fact and increasingly infuse popular culture with women in these roles is simply an act of social conditioning — and there is nothing more inauthentic and two-dimensional than that.
I sure wish the utopians would stop trying to influence opinion with political propaganda, and instead simply celebrate and reflect reality. Women who nurture are doing a good thing — they are not “consigned” into anything shameful or oppressive in choosing to live that way. It has actually become a bold and defying act for a woman to withstand the feminist shaming campaign, and stay home and nurture their kids. That’s how bad things have gotten — reality itself has come to be perceived as the cardboard caricature, while the feminist fantasy of Super Woman is celebrated as 3-dimensional reality.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“All this talk about “have it all” empowerment feminism is simply feminist claptrap”
There’s been a miscommunication somewhere along the line. No one is saying that women do, can, or should “have it all.” Rather, we’re saying that women (and men) should get to be whoever they are and whoever they want to be without trying to force themselves into gender stereotypes. If a woman is more tough and less nurturing, that’s fine. She’s no less of a woman, she isn’t “going against nature.” If it makes her happy, she can be that person. This applies to women who want to be nurturing and feminine and never want to get involved in conflict.
And if a woman wants to “have it all” and that makes her happy, she can do that too.
So can a man.
As for there not being very women in top positions, have you ever considered that much of that is ingrained sexism rather than “omg, women just can’t handle it”? If everyone just assumed that you couldn’t handle a position of power because of your gender, do you really think that you would get one – even if you were just as qualified and able as your male peers?
As the daughter of a decidedly “masculine” woman who DID make it to the top in the business world, I can safely say that the road was much harder than it would be for a man. Everyone has to prove themselves to get promotions, but women have to go beyond that and try to break the assumptions their bosses make.
Honestly, the fact that we’re seeing so many more women in positions of power, in math/engineering jobs, etc. as it becomes more socially acceptable for them just goes to prove that the differences, if they are innate at all, were hugely inflated by culture.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Grimalkin wrote:
The reason why there are not very many women in top positions is not primarily due to “ingrained sexism.” That oppression B.S. is what feminists promote in their ideology. The reality is that women have made choices in their lives, and they tend to want more balanced lives that include nurturing children. You can’t climb to the top of the corporate ladder when you leave the job promptly at 4:59 PM so that you can pick up your kids and have dinner ready by 6:30. Reaching the top tends to demand 18-hour workdays. That is why fewer women reach the top — because of their own choices — and it’s also the reason behind the pay gap.
The ideology — with feminists it’s always about oppression and victimhood, never the choices of individual women. It’s always the ideology, never the reality.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Except that your theory doesn’t play out in the real world where women often DON’T choose the “gender-appropriate” choice when they’re actually given an alternative option. Like I said, the number of women working in traditionally male jobs keeps rising as it becomes more and more acceptable. That alone proves you wrong.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Grimalkin wrote:
It is your theory that is based on ideology. Women are in the workforce out of necessity, in order to survive and put a roof over their heads. They work not because they otherwise would do so, but because work produces the means for survival. They work BECAUSE they have no other options. No other options — that is the key. No husband is offering to support them, and therefore they have no other choice; they either work, or they die.
If a woman is even given the option of staying home or working a paid job, that means that she is PRIVILEGED. What woman offers to support a man — at his option — so that he can opt out of the paid workforce? I can tell you it is extremely rare that a woman would offer this option to a man. But you, Grimalkin, herald the removal of this option to women as some sign of women’s liberation. No longer are men offering women such an option; women are entering the workforce because they have no other choice, not because they never had a choice. Feminism has denied them that option now, because feminist divorce and family law statutes made it extremely risky for men to be sole providers to their wives. Now women have no other choice but to work.
How is the REMOVAL of an option a sign of increased power for women? You have more power when you have more options, not less.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
There’s quite a bit wrong with your latest comment, but I will try to address each point.
Many women who could stay at home choose to work. Many women who work could go into “female-appropriate” jobs, but choose to enter male-dominated fields instead. Not all women are teachers, care-givers, nurses, or secretaries. Many work in business, as engineers, as scientists, etc. This is a choice – one to enter what is typically thought of as male-appropriate sectors. And finally, there are quite a few stay-at-home dads. A quick google search and I am sure you would find some yahoo groups or some such. Again, men who choose to focus on nurturing and caring for their families become more common as it becomes more socially acceptable for them.
The necessity of two-income families is a function of economy, not feminism. It isn’t some shrieking sisterhood banning women from staying at home. It’s women/families realizing that either they cannot function in this economy on a single income or that they don’t want to because it would require too much sacrifice.
You are also putting the cart before the horse. The reason the economy shifted in a way that made it more difficult for single-income families to exist is because most women CHOSE to start working, thereby restructuring expectations of household incomes.
And by the way, living single-income is by no means impossible for the vast majority of people. Due to various circumstances, I was unable to work for about five years and my husband supported me with his minimum wage job. Part of our ability to do this was a function of where we live, but part of it has to do with our attitudes and lifestyle. It took a lot of sacrifice, but it’s definitely possible for most people, especially if the wage-earner makes a decent amount.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Oops, forgot to comment on your last point: “How is the REMOVAL of an option a sign of increased power for women? You have more power when you have more options, not less.”
How is giving women the option to work a removal of options? If you want to claim that feminism removed the possibility of staying home, then all it did was substitute one forced option for another. In which case, the worst you can say for feminism is that it changed the name and not the nature of life for women.
But that wouldn’t be true, as evidenced by the fact that many women do stay home with their children.
So while it’s true that all options aren’t open to everyone (all are decisions are restricted by factors such as age, finance, race, gender, disability, etc.), at least the option is there.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Women always had the option of working; some did so out of necessity. Some stayed home out of duty to their families. Some stayed home out of respect for their husband’s preferences. Some stayed home because they were aware of the drudgery that might await them, were they to enter the paid workforce with so little relevant experience in a given field. But the point is that for the overwhelmingly vast majority of these women, it was a choice — not made in a vacuum, that is true — but a choice nonetheless. This notion that feminists “gave” women anything is patently ridiculous. Point me to the law that was passed which “freed” women (HA!) from the home.
Women began to increasingly enter the workforce because the country was embroiled in a world war. Many of them remained there after the war, often because their husbands were killed, but just as often because they demanded a lifestyle that even the husband could not easily provide on his own. Working was either foisted upon them by circumstance (the war) or by their own choices (increased materialism from the 1950s onward). There was no “liberation,” as though a chain was attached to their leg on one side and the stove on the other. That is a feminist myth.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“Women always had the option of working; some did so out of necessity.”
Yes, women always had the option of working – just not all women. And not all positions were available to them, even when they were capable of doing the work, and especially not for the same rate of pay as men. Which was (and in some cases continues to be) a travesty.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
John Dias – Women always had the option of working? No. Not a snowball’s chance in hell if she was middle or upper class. Even lower class women would have found it difficult to work outside of their husband’s/father’s businesses (unless they wanted to be wetnurses) for most of our history. This was mostly because any woman found outside her home, especially if she was earning money, without being accompanied by a relative would be assumed a prostitute and would quite often be killed.
Feminism opened up the workforce to all women, of all classes. Feminism also opened up all areas of the workforce (and is continuing to do so). Women who have to/want to work no longer have to be content with being wetnurses, brewess, governesses, and nurses (and even that was scandalous in Florence Nightingale’s time). They could work in the “men’s world” (business, politics, science, etc.). That made having a career a viable option for women (there isn’t much room for ambition in wetnursing).
As for which “law” was passed, there were many – such as any law relating to “equal pay for equal work.” But no, feminism is social movement more than a political one. It’s thanks to feminism that I can get a job in business without being stoned to death as a prostitute.
Women entered the workforce en masse because of the World Wars, true. But why did they stay there? You say that it’s materialism, but isn’t that just a tad silly? Is it materialism for men to want to work? Is it materialism to want a purpose to one’s life that isn’t completely focused on offspring? Is it materialism to want a chance to achieve one’s goals on one’s own without always having to be dependent on hand-outs? Say what you will about the virtues of house-wifery, but it makes women dependent on the kindness of others. If she wants a new stereo, she cannot simply work hard and save for it. She depends on getting it as a gift. She is, in essence, infantilised by having the control over her own life, her independence, kept away from her. Is it materialism for a woman to want to be able to care for herself?
It absolutely is a liberation. When I work, I achieve goals. I have a product that I put my blood, sweat, and tears into, a product that is made public and that generates approval in the form of revenue. When I work, I have the choice of working really hard and getting a promotion, or doing the bare necessity. When I work, I am in control of my life because I know that, should anything happen (such as the death of my spouse), I can survive and support myself. That’s peace of mind, that’s freedom, that’s liberation.
You talk about working as “drudgery.” I feel bad for you if this is how you view grown-up life. Okay, I don’t have a parental figure looking after all my needs, buying my that new bike I wanted, and then patting my head and calling me good. But I get independence, I get to achieve things on my own. I work, I can support myself, I can even live on my own if I choose do. I can do all of this without being called a prostitute and being stoned to death. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!
January 21st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I just want to note that Dirk Benedict not only misspells Katharine Hepburn’s name (whatever, she was just some womanly woman actor, apparently, so who cares), but also calls Han Solo “Hans Solo.”
Which latter completely destroys any sci-fi cred he may have had as far as I’m concerned, and which makes me feel justified in discounting everything he says about BSG new or old.
Or, indeed, anything else.