No more "junior partner"

[alyholic]

tara-haters? that's so sad! tara's my baby! (well, not really- if my girlfriend saw that she'd cry and need comforting... i think that's a good idea )
oh well. not till vacation is over.
i can't wait to see next weeks buffy. yesterdays kept me alive. i am dying of the flu and i need surgery today, but it helped alot.

alyholic

[Under Her Spell]

That's a really good point, Willowlicious - people forget about the grief, and about the many, many months spent while Buffy was dead - because we just didn't see that time.

It's like I'm saying - while Willow is "the strongest of all of us" (to quote Giles) she's also too self-reliant, and didn't let Tara support her when she needed it most.

I've noticed that BtVS is always the Scoobies, who find strength in each other and have a combined power which is greater than any single individual, battling with one single figure like The Master, Angel, The Mayor, etc. who tries to be all powerful, and have power over others. The message in BtVS is always that individual power is never true strength, compared to the power of a group.

I guess it's kinda Communist, really!

[tommo]

Well, the whole "strength in numbers" ideal has always been a vital part of the show hasn't it? Whilst the show is named after a single character, we know that the Scooby Gang is really the hub of the attraction for us as viewers.

But we've seen the dissipation of that over the last season, and I suppose the culmination of a long time of isolation for Willow, in a way. Her isolation as the "clever girl" in school is nothing compared to her isolation as a result of her own actions. I think her inability to show emotions or communicate successfully with Tara is only another symptom of her growing isolation.

------------------
Sweetie...I'm a fag.

[concrete]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tommo:
I think her inability to show emotions or communicate successfully with Tara is only another symptom of her growing isolation.

---

well.... that cheered me up to no end..

------------------
It's not so much that I'm always right, it's just that I'm never wrong.....quote:

[Ari]

I agree with those who said part of the problem is that they never even really got a chance to work though things after the fight in Tough Love. I always figured that was a good part of why Tara might have been willing to go along with the resurrection spell. Because the last time she challenged Willow on her magic use was that fight and everything fell apart in the aftermath. Then as soon as she got her mind back, Buffy was gone and there was so much to deal with in the aftermath of that as well.

Since that was their first real fight, and it was born of some legitimate issues they both were having, it could only be a bad thing they never got the chance to work through it all. Instead those issues just festered and grew until they were out of control.

A lot of their problems do seem to be born from their mutual insecurities. Except the two of them manifest those feelings in very different ways.

Willow overcompensates. When she's feeling uncertain about something, instead of pulling back, she pushes harder. She needs to feel right and respected and takes challenges or questioning of what she's doing to be personal insults. I agree with Xita, that she mistakes strength for an unbending will.

Tara, on the other hand, is more the type to keep her opinions and thoughts to herself in order to avoid confrontation. I would have to think it has a lot to do with the enviroment she was raised in where pretty much everything about herself, her magic, her sexuality, and even her intelligence, were things that she had to hide. This is the girl who painted her dorm walls black and sang about living her life in shadow. After all, shadows are the best places to hide.

As Tara grows more confident and assertive, more willing to voice her own opinions and challenge Willow on hers, it was bound to bring them into conflict. I have to think, as they try to get back together, that the most important thing for Willow is that she has to learn to respect Tara's thoughts and opinions and understand that for someone to disagree with her isn't an insult to her intelligence.

I do think she's been working on this. And it seemed to me that Tara's praise at the end of OAFA was so meaningful to her because of the respect she's got for Tara's opinion. I bet it even surprised her how much just that little bit of understanding and encouragement meant to her. Probably more so than anything else that's been said to her since Wrecked.

Tara, and I think she's starting to do this as well, really has to fight against her instinct to not voice her thoughts and opinions. That just lets everything build up inside her until they are too polarized to be able to discuss anything rationally. Plus, there's no way Willow can learn to appreciate and respect her opinion unless Tara's willing to speak up when she's got one. *G*

Ari

[Spinner]

I have a different take on the roles that Willow and Tara have when snuggling in bed. I don't see it as Willow holding Tara, but rather as Willow lying on her back while Tara makes the effort and snuggles up to her. As The Rose pointed out earlier in this thread, Tara is often the one who initiates things in this relationship. She might have a less dominant personality, but that does not mean she has no control over how the relationship goes.

And I agree with xita that I would like to see Willow snuggling up to Tara when they get back together.

[Dazey]

Put me in the same group as Zahir and Ruth, with the notion that the dynamics of this relationship are much more complex and fluid than the terms this discussion has employed are capable of encompassing. Not only am I deeply uncomfortable with said terms, I am equally uncomfortable with the concept of strict binary dynamics and the idea that W/T can or must be forced into them. The reference to Willow as the "male" persona in the relationship, even when accompanied by a mitigating cringe, shows how deeply flawed such an idea is.

I'm not saying that everyone who argued from this perspective is totally wrong or that many valid points weren't raised. Many caveats were offered regarding the unsuitability of the available terms...but again it's the mere implication that there must be a binary dynamic, must be a dominant partner and a submissive partner, that grates my cheese. Because this is the dynamic that has been set up by the patriarchal culture, which values power and control (there's those words again) above all else. I refuse to cast this relationship, which is about as anti-patriarchal as you're going to get, in that light.

The things I was thinking of when this discussion was first broached are the precise things that The Rose mentions in her post. In "Hush," Tara was proactive and sought out Willow to do a spell. She initiated the handhold and the spell to move the vending machine. She rather forthrightly told Willow she was "special," which was the first escalation of the embryonic relationship.

In TIIT she is again first to push the boundaries, offering the crystal...then Willow rejects it, but offers a spell date. A step back, then a step forward. Tara accepts and pushes again by offering to meet that night...again Willow rejects but offers a future meeting. Another step back, another step forward...and we can see that the phrase "emotional dance" is entirely appropriate if cliché--and that Tara is taking the lead.

It continues in WAY as Tara boldly declares that she "belongs" to Willow--easy to read as evident of a dominant/submissive dynamic if that is your viewpoint, but also open to many other non-binary, non-patriarchal readings, especially when we note that it is Tara who, later in the ep, initiates the spell/sex. It's so easy to label Tara as "submissive" because she's quiet and shy (and to label Willow as dominant by default, though in S1-2 she as also seen as quiet and shy), but I don't find it accurate at all. I was particularly bothered by the implication in Willowlicious's post that Tara's maternalness (maternality? Is either of those a word?) is evidence of her "submissiveness." I'm flashing back to a paper I once did on Ma Joad in The Grapes of Wrath and Sethe in Beloved...and another on elephant society (matriarchal)...and okay that's going to get me way OT....

Anyway. Tara is gentle and yielding, yes. Rather like a--dare I say it?--willow tree. Is it fair to say that the wind is dominant and the willow submissive? We wouldn't think to apply those terms in such a case, and I don't see why we should apply them to W/T.

As Ruth pointed out, and as I pointed out when the ep first aired, the most telling image of W/T is the one at the end of "The Gift": Willow supports her physically and mentally exhausted lover, then sees Buffy's dead body and sags almost imperceptibly...and Tara is there to support her. Ebb and flow.

------------------
"We are in the love. We are...the in love ones. Lesbian, in love with merry-type."

[This message has been edited by Dazey (edited February 20, 2002).]

[Willowlicious]

You know, Dazey, as I wrote my post I remember thinking quite clearly, "Dazey is gonna have a goddamn fit."

For the record, I do not think any couple MUST fit into a dominant/submissive role and I DO NOT think that being maternal equals being submissive. AT ALL. I would never leave that impression on purpose. I was trying to point out the ways in which W/T met "traditional" (old-fashioned, out-dated, limiting, incorrect, offensive, etc., etc.) views of "gender" roles. To call Willow "male" in this setting is not offensive to me, as I already stated that I was categorizing using a traditional model. I also stated the model was DEEPLY flawed. As a rule, I don't believe in categorizing at all, but as it was already brought up in this discussion, I chose to flesh it out a bit. My problem, if it is a problem, is that I don't tend to politicize the use of certain words just because I'm a gay woman. For me, it's about context and the context I was using was trying to describe how one MIGHT apply the dominant/submissive model to W/T if one were so inclined. I was not trying to say one was better (stronger) than the other. Neither was I trying to force a category on either of them. It is not that simple. Rather, it is very, very fluid and complex. I am in a long-term relationship. Both my girlfriend and I are dominant and submissive, male (not afraid of that word) and female, top and bottom and everything in the between. There have been times when one of us has taken the lead and times when things were utterly equal. We have been all over the map and are a million shades of gray. Ebb and flow, indeed. It's one area in which I don't need to be schooled.

BTW, just because I know you wouldn't hesitate to tell me, "maternalness" and "maternality" are not words.

Amy

[This message has been edited by Willowlicious (edited February 20, 2002).]

[maudmac]

Okay, I've been thinking about this a lot today. (Hmph, and my co-workers thought I was working.) Not just about the specific dynamics of Willow and Tara's relationship, but also the dominant/submissive, male/female, butch/femme, blah/blah, etc. dichotomy in general.

I agree with everyone about the ebb and flow stuff. That's really what I was thinking about today. I'm fixin' to go kinda Taoisty here. The whole notion of yin and yang being separate forces, femininity embodying passivity and masculinity embodying activity, always bothered me. Until I got two things.

First, these...forces or traits or whatever they are are not gender-specific. Each of us, whether we are male, female, some combination of the two, or neither, possesses and utilizes both masculine and feminine energy. Masculine energy allows us to be assertive, determined, motivated, etc. (At the extreme, we find aggression, rigidity, and brutality.) Feminine energy allows us to be receptive, compassionate, gentle, etc. (In overabundance, we have fragility, submissiveness, weakness and such.) Ultimately, though, the ideal is Balance.

The ebbing and flowing of these forces occur within each person, depending on a zillion different things. It lets Willow be supportive of Tara and lets Tara be in need of support one second and allows for the reverse to be true in the next second, as in "The Gift".

The second thing I got is that yin and yang are not exclusive. It's not an either/or thing. Together, they form a perfect union; they are different aspects of the same Whole. And isn't that what relationships are? Each of us seeks a partner in order to achieve Balance. When Willow recedes, Tara advances. When Tara needs, Willow gives. So there are no gaps between them, they are in constant flux.

By viewing the dynamics of Willow and Tara's relationship as some sort of amorphous mass of ebbing and flowing energies, it's no longer necessary to define it in terms of senior/junior partner. Each of them has senior and junior tendencies and they complement each other in a way that creates Balance.

At least, until Willow did all that mind-wipey stuff. But they will find their balance as a couple again once each of them has found her own balance.

Um, whew. I think I gave myself a headache. Yikes. This has been an immensely interesting and thought-provoking thread. I love these big, deep discussion things.

[AutumnT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dazey:
but again it's the mere implication that there must be a binary dynamic, must be a dominant partner and a submissive partner, that grates my cheese

---

Well I certainly wasn't saying this, in fact my hope is for there not to be a dominant or submissive partner. I agree with the folks who have talked about roles interchanging and the idea of the dance. However, the reason I broached the topic in the first place is that with the way things are now I was not seeing that "dance" - there is clearly someone in charge or steering things right now. While I know for a fact that relationship dynamics can and do change I also know that at times one person can be in the driver's seat for too long. I'm just wanting to see things on a bicycle built for two where both can alternately support and be supported.

------------------
Autumn

I have the sudden urge to dedicate my productive cooperation.quote:

[Dazey]

Willowlicious, I was not having a fit, I swear. Nor was I trying to school you. I think sometimes--often?--my posts have a strident, pedantic tone that I would rather they not, but I can't figure out how to stop it. As I was typing that post yesterday I knew it was coming off that way and I didn't want it to...I kept rephrasing things but it just didn't work. I'm sorry. Please understand that I am not attacking you or your views...but as your posts are always among the most well-thought-out and well-written, they are inevitably among the ones I choose to respond to.

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with this discussion or the terminology being employed. I'm not offended by it, just bothered that we don't have better ways of talking about the complex dynamics of W/T, or of any human relationship. What I was trying to do was encourage a bit of discussion about the words we were using, maybe find some concepts and terms that would allow us to discuss this very interesting topic more meaningfully. I seem to have failed at doing that, so I think I'll just observe this particular thread from a distance now.

I will say that I do have a problem with the word "male" (as used in this discussion) that stems largely from negative personal experience. Intensely negative. That's my issue, not yours or anyone else's, but I think "masculine" might better serve here, since it connotes much less a physical/biological reality and more a psychological one. See maudmac's post above for more of the kind of thinking I was hoping to encourage.

BTW, how about "maternalism"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AutumnT:
the reason I broached the topic in the first place is that with the way things are now I was not seeing that "dance" - there is clearly someone in charge or steering things right now.

---

My last comment on this subject--I think this is largely because we don't have enough distance from the events of TR, which is when the dynamic so radically shifted. OAFA was their first real, meaningful interaction since then. We may (will, hopefully) see more of the dance in the near future.quote: