Lesbian Cliche FAQ - Final (tentative)

[kc070697]

Thanks guys... It means a lot to me that my feelings, although new to the show, are validated. I feel miserable. But at least it's good to know we have each other!

--KC (really Charisma, and I was born BEFORE Charisma Carpenter so it was my name first! )
www.my-life-of-riley.com/.../title.htm

[Dumbsaint]

Not a whore like me?

[kc070697]

Dumbsaint: I'm sorry? ... I certainly didn't intend any disrespect.

[Dumbsaint]

Oh goodness, no worries, KC. I was actually referring back to Ruth's last post in this thread.

Nevermind us and our whorishness. Emphasis on the "us." As in plural. Whores. Ahem. Got that, Ruth?

KC, you're new to the board, and thus probably not an initiate in our smut lovin' ways. Certain Kittens refer to themselves and certain other Kittens in ways that may seem derogatory, but, in fact, are endearments of greatest affection.

Hence the whorishness.

[kc070697]

Ahhh... I understand now. ;O)

So, does anybody think there's any chance that the writers might listen to their audience and bring Tara back (ss Tara and not a ghost or demon something)?

[Sheridan]

[quote:709f9631f3][b:709f9631f3][i:709f9631f3]Quote:[/i:709f9631f3][/b:709f9631f3]

---

So, does anybody think there's any chance that the writers might listen to their audience and bring Tara back (ss Tara and not a ghost or demon something)?

---

[/quote:709f9631f3]


The only thing Joss listens to is his ego. It was clearly a mistake to praise him so loudly and often it simply convinced him that he he could do no wrong. To bring back Tara now would be admitting to a mistake and I don't think he's even capable of realising it was one, let alone fixing it.

[Kendahl897]

Joss is going to bring Tara back only if that was part of the original plan to begin with, if last season was just the beginning of a continual story arc that will culminate this year. Other than that, he's not going to do it to just please us..But if he does bring her back, he covered himself with his quote from E-Online..The one where he said 'he had no plans to send Tara anywhere, but that he had horrible things to do to Willow and Tara.' I'm suer we all remember that quote....I thought he meant breaking them up at the time, but you never know with Joss. Breaking up is nothing compared to how the season ended...

[emma peel]

Kendahl897, thanks for being such a "voice of reason" when I'm ready to go off somewhere for a big old rant on Joss.
Puts things in a different perspective.
Janice
P.S. I still think Joss is a doodyhead, though.

[Ben Varkentine]

Well, I do think there's a possibility of Whedon admitting that the way he handled it, if not the whole idea itself, was a mistake. I just think it's gonna take a while and it's probably not gonna fix anything. It'll just be a note on the season six overview when the DVDs come out. Call me naive, but I'd still like to think no one could get the feedback this has recieved, especially such intelligent writings as many of the Kittens have done (at least some of which we're pretty sure he's seen, right?) without thinking again...

[friskylez]

Im in the Joss does get it but doesnt care camp...Hes a putz, a spoiled little boy who only wants things done his way and he doesnt care how "the lesbians" or other W/T shippers feel..The proof is in the fact that he is bringing Warren back and not Tara...Grrrr argh.....This should be 251 and "Willowhand", but thats what i thought last time

Edited to add i have along way to go before im "Sassy"...

[urnofosiris]

[b:03df856ac7] Just a general note to anyone who might be hesitant to post disagreement about the Lesbian Cliche FAQ in this thread. Let me assure you that no namecalling will be allowed on either side, the general FAQ has been updated recently, feel free to check it out. Some more recent posts have been edited or deleted accordingly.

The Lesbian Cliche FAQ is quite detailed and has well thought out arguments, if anyone wants to post to disagree with it that is perfectly fine, but please also take the time to read it thoroughly first, and not post arguments that have already been countered in the FAQ, instead, if you do not agree with those counter arguments from the FAQ then address those, preferably backed up with actual points other than "get over it".

Unlike namecalling sarcasm is allowed, that works both ways as well. If you post in a sarcastic manner or use an argument that has already been countered a few times before, do not be surprised if people will reply to disagree and some may do so in a sarcastic manner. If people counter an opposing argument and you have a new counter argument, then just post it, don't say you have one but won't post it because people will disagree anyway, that may be true, but unless you give the reason for your point of view don't expect anyone to suddenly change their mind and suddenly agree with you. The FAQ was written in the detail it was to show where we are coming from and that we did more than react out of anger. The statements in it have been well thought out and revised in response to other opinions. It did not suffice to say Joss Whedon was wrong and we are right. We do back up that basic claim.

Lastly, if anyone has questions comments about the moderation of the board or this thread feel free to email us. Often we will do the emailing ourselves but not everyone has their email listed.[/b:03df856ac7]

[kc070697]

I guess I don't really believe he'll bring her back, either, but... I almost hope that this was part of the storyline all along & he WILL be bringing her back. Maybe they are yanking our chains for the sake of the storyline once again? One can always hope, I suppose.

[Kendahl897]

It certainly makes one wonder that what he was talking about in that interview to E-Online when he said that he had no plans to send Tara anywhere but that he had horrible things to do to Willow and Tara..I used to think he was talking about breaking them up, but that was nothing compared to how the season ended..So who knows with Joss....whatever happens, I think we're going to have to wait for spoilers. I don't see them giving anything away as far as Tara is concerned..I just wish Amber was in a position to say..Joss said on another thread that Anya was going to have a bigger role next season because she deserved it.And all I could think was what? And Amber deserved this..She's put her heart and soul into the show and you couldn't wait to kill her off.....

[tommo]

Well, I think Joss' spin was all part of the general "let's keep 'em watching" scenario he created and ME continued to support. So his little white lies snowballed out of control and became gigantic huge whoppers. Which you know, is fine. Because he's the one who's going to have to live with having told them.

[Druidess]

Joss has elicited the same emotional response in we, the fans, as was illustrated so well by Willow's rage and meltdown. In other words...he did it again...gave us something to personalize, rant, weep, and proclaim "unfair" about, but nonetheless, he and Mutant Enemy brilliantly succeeded in "reaching" us, his audience. Regardless of how many people say they are outraged, and will no longer support or view the show, I for (one while invested in the characters and their lives) LIKE to FEEL....My hopes are that Tara and Willow will make some kind of a comeback, that we can get the 'warm fuzzies' back in some way or another, and meanwhile, tune in for more whackiness ensuing....

[Sheridan]

Sorry [b:27fd5e6eac] Druidess[/b:27fd5e6eac]but if I want that can kind of loss, grief and despair I'll turn on the news. I felt plenty with Willow and Tara, a feeling of warmth and friendship, and joy. I know that a lot of Kittens felt a great deal more. For them W/T were a beacon of hope, an illustration that they weren't doomed to a terrible life just because they were gay, a hope that was destroyed by JW in the most hackneyed and cliched manner imaginable. Should I tune in it will be on the basis that I can't let go of my concern for Dawn and Willow, unless I see some sign of consideration for the characters I shall be switching over to Smallville ASAP.

[xita]

Druidess, by that logic I should be calling Charlie Manson a genius for "reaching" us and making us feel something. And you need to read the FAQ again, the fact that they chose to make us feel through the death of the lesbian couple is the problem. STAKING SPIKE would make many a girl weep and rant and protest and scream and yell, but did they do that? Not they butchered the only lesbian relationship of any consequence on TV ever.

[RealitySpeaks]

Since I have time again and I could not resist the moderators recent invitation to post disagreement regarding the Clich FAQ, here is a view about the first 3 main points of the FAQ:

1) General reservations regarding FAQ Composition and lack of logical system:

The FAQ is basically an unstructured mixture of definitions (some of which pretty vague), observations, subjective/emotional opinions, assumptions/postulates, generalizations and conclusions. By composition, the FAQ lacks a clear definition and a strict logical system with a coherent argumentation as a basis for its conclusion. This problem with the FAQ also means that it is very hard to argue for or against it in an objective (scientific) way.

I will get into some specifics below. Since this post is already quite long, going into all the details would be too much. Basic suggestions to improve the FAQ would be: Stick with one clear definition, make clear what is fact (and back them up), what is assumptions or postulates. Be clear on logical dependencies and in particular avoid conclusive argumentation based in whole or part on emotions.

2) Definition of Clich ambiguous, vague and unbounded

First of all, the clich is defined in 2/3 different ways:

The definition (FAQ point 1) of the Clich does not exactly define what the Clich is, when the Clich applies and especially when the Clich does NOT applies (as opposite to discussing consequence, messages and gay film history). It states that the Clich is when a gay character is introduced to be killed, but when do we know for a fact that a gay character is introduced into a storyline (just) to be killed? On which conditions, if any, can a gay character be killed at all outside the clich? Also, is it implied that what applies to killing a gay character is that same as a gay character getting evil or is another clich?

Another definition (FAQ point 2) broadens the Clich more out by stating that the clich is really about lesbian couples that never find happiness and always meet tragic ends. While more clearly stated, this definition is also incredibly broad (in my opinion). Unless a mistake, this must mean that all lesbian couples must be happy and never die or go crazy (unlike all other couples).

A third definition (FAQ point 3, paragraph 2) states that the clich (feature of it ?) is when the death of a lesbian character is associated directly with the act of lesbian sex. Specifically, what does directly associated mean (time/space?) ? Does sex also cover hugging+kiss ?

The big question here is which definition is the right one? Personally, I believe most people will be willing to accept a Clich as defined by point 1 and/or 3, but a clich based strictly on point 2 will get nowhere.

3) Weak argumentation for why clich apply to Buffy

Note, that the above problems with the FAQ make it hard to discuss this in a serious way, but I will try as best as possible assuming the following about when the Clich applies: That the gay character must have been introduced solely for the purpose of killing that character or for that character to get evil OR that a gay character is killed while or immediately after having as Willow would say the naked thing.

Basically, the argumentation in point 3 of the is that Tara died violently which causes Willow to go crazy and evil and that Tara died after having sex. Ergo Clich.

However, Tara was introduced two seasons ago and initially only as a fellow witch, even though this changed quickly. While not a main character Tara did contribute in several ways doing season 4, 5 and 6 in many ways not related to her sexual orientation or relationship to Willow. If she was not introduced late in season 6, the argument that she was introduced just to be killed might be correct but since this is clearly not the case the argumentation in the FAQ does not hold water (by the FAQs own current definitions).

If you look carefully, you will see that Willow and Tara had sex the day BEFORE she was shoot. So in the story timeframe, she was killed one scene after a kiss + a hug (but not sex) the day after. So any connection is at least a day old. More importantly, it was heavily implied for two seasons that they had a physical relationship. I find it is implausible that there is even a hit of a message that they where punished for something that in fact started that long ago. If this was clearly their first sexual act and Tara died during or immediately after, that I would admit that associations where being made, but since this is not the case so again the FAQ is leaping to conclusions.

[Kieli]

Somehow you are still missing the point. Regardless of what ME's [i:588ba38cac] intentions[/i:588ba38cac] may have been, the result can not be denied. The fact that heterosexuals can see some sort of correlation between being gay and being punished (perhaps you might want to check out the Rant thread for personal testimony) does lead one to at least consider that the FAQ are not off the mark. One can not argue in any strict scientific sense about the nature of what has happened to W/T. To do so would be absurd at best. What most are arguing are observations based on what has been shown throughout the seasons, ME's own contradictory statements, and definitions pulled from gay film and television history. While you, not being gay, can not possibly understand that or possibly just may not know anything about said subject, you really can not argue something of which you have no experience or knowledge.

You continue to blatantly overlook many well thought out arguments aside from the FAQ. One can not really expect strict logical argumentation for something such as this because it IS a rather emotional subject. The rules of "logic", categorical or otherwise, may not necessarily happen. Even so, you've not really offered much to refute, just to dispute. What you find implausible does not make your argument any more factual. It is still simply your [i:588ba38cac] observation[/i:588ba38cac] and a limited one at that. Have you taken a poll? Do you know for sure that it is impossible for anyone to draw the conclusions such as the ones posited in the FAQ? If you haven't then, by your own definitions, your statement is merely opinion and not necessarily a logical argument for "leaping to conclusions".

What I believe the FAQ are meant to do is to show how said Cliche is being perpetuated (whether or not they had sex one time or one hundred times is irrelevant to the argument at hand). As has been posited by many more intelligent posters than myself, Tara need not have died in such a manner to further the storyline. If her death scene had even been remotely plausible, we would not be having this discussion. If anything ME had said in the previous two seasons was even remotely TRUE, we would not be having this discussion. But neither things are the case, and here we sit, quibbling over semantics and bantering back and forth the "You don't have a true argument" thing which Jossophiles from other boards like yourself tend to come and do. You don't agree with us. That much is clear. And yet I have to ask, is there really a point that you are trying to make by coming over here and giving us lessons in what you feel is logic? Or are you here to listen to yourself lecture to us?

Kieli

[Wiccagrrl313]

I think the FAQ is very clear and to the point. And yes, a lot of it does have to do with emotional reactions and perceptions. But it also has to do with explaining, in a calm, reasonable way, *why* this storyline has hit so many of us so hard. What we find objectionable, both in the eps themselves and the behind-the-scenes stuff like interviews. It doesn't hit you that way, and that's fine. But it is very clear that it *did* hit many of us this way, for many, many reasons. That is all the FAQ is intending to do- explain those reasons. Not everyone is going to react the same way or reach the same conclusions. A respectful person will eventually step back and say "I may not agree, but clearly they've given this a lot of thought and they have the right to their opinion."

[emma peel]

The problem with the clich (Re: a general reminder):

Not even gonna go there. Bored now.
Janice

[xita]

[quote:2291195de7][b:2291195de7][i:2291195de7]Quote:[/i:2291195de7][/b:2291195de7]

---

If she was not introduced late in season 6, the argument that she was introduced just to be killed might be correct but since this is clearly not the case

---

[/quote:2291195de7]

Hmm, she was. She was kept on the show to die, which part of Amber Benson's Toronto appearance did you miss? They always wanted to kill her, they just didn't know when.
[quote:2291195de7][b:2291195de7][i:2291195de7]Quote:[/i:2291195de7][/b:2291195de7]

---

If you look carefully, you will see that Willow and Tara had sex the day BEFORE she was shoot. So in the story timeframe, she was killed one scene after a kiss + a hug (but not sex) the day after. So any connection is at least a day old. More importantly, it was heavily implied for two seasons that they had a physical relationship.

---

[/quote:2291195de7]

Actually, if you paid attention, you would see that Willow and Tara were putting on their clothes right after having sex. So in the story timeframe, she was killed one scene after a kiss + and a hug and conversation that leaves no doubt to the fact that they were having sex. So any connection is clearly made by the show. Initially, I am sure you know being the Buffy expert that you are, the shot was supposed to take place outside in a coffee shop, but the writers felt that somehow the impact would be better if done in the bedroom. No not the kitchen, no not the living room, the bedroom. You can make any connection you want, and certainly all opinions will be qualified by your necessity to deffend ME and your obvious right leanings. Other will make other connections, certainly again qualified by their own backrounds, including a lifetime of oppression by homophobia or horrible fear of being kicked out of your own house cause you're gay.

It is obvious though that it has affected many, many people who feel strongly enough to not keep quiet. That's significant and you are aware this is the only place that allows and support this opinion? I don't know why it has become an obsession of Buffy fandom to bash and criticize the kitty, why does it bug you so much? Are we saying something about you that touches a nerve? Cause I don't get it. Certainly there are a lot of aspects of The Bronze that well let's just say I have a lot of thoughts about it, but I don't spend my time talking about it here and I certainly wouldn't go there. What's it to me how a faction of fanatics behave or what they think?

As far as data backing up the cliche, we are upset and that's enough. It is about emotion, it's about a group of people saying, enough we're not taking this from a so called friend, not again. Certainly your Joss now realizes the trash he produced this year needs to be fixed, maybe you can as well Unfortunately for us, ego may not allow a proper return of Tara, but I'd like to see this man pull this one again. No, I really would.

[emma peel]

xita, I am giving you a standing ovation of one.
Brava!
Janice

[RealitySpeaks]

I find it amazing that a group of people that are themselves publicly perpetuating a myth of evil wrongdoing on the side of ME and work actively to present their view of the matter to other people through many (outside) web forums and though the press, find it offensive if a person outside that group hears their statements, cares to disagree and let the group know that.

I also find it amazing to read that logic (and thus any kind of sound reasoning) has nothing to do with the clich that you as a group have formulated. I also dislike that some are willing to use argumentation based on feelings that they accept as being outside logic (or irrational) to publicly denounce and second-guess other people (in this case primarily ME).- And even though you as a group on this board may not have called ME a bunch of lying, racist, homophobes yourself, you can not claim that you are totally without responsibility for such incorrect, disrespectful and unfair remarks.

To put the whole Clich thing in another perspective, but without(!) claiming anything about you as a group, I would like to point to John D. Goldhammer who has an interesting self quiz about destructive group behavior (or group paranoia). I have listed three of his (many) questions (multiple answers of yes should be taking as a warning sign).

Does your group have its own unique words, CLICHES, slogans, chants, prayers and doctrinal phrases that reinforce the group viewpoint?

Does your group discourage doubts, criticism or ideas that differ from their belief system?

Does your group obsessively think other groups or people with different beliefs are out to get them?

[xita]

Did you actually read my post where I challenged the facts of the show, or just decide to criticize our right to disagree?

What attitude are we supposed to take when you come here? Thank you, thank your for showing me the ways things really are.. thank you for pointing out to me how I am just a hysterical lesbian, who does not understand about logic. Is that it? You post, we disagree. I don't know what else you expect just because we don't agree with you.

[BBOvenGuy]

Oooh! Oooh! Can I be a hysterical lesbian, too? It's always been a dream of mine...

By the way, as for Dr. Goldhammer's "self quiz," I believe that Jews living under the Third Reich would have been able to answer "yes" to all three of those questions, and I would hardly have called them hysterical. It's not exactly an accurate test. It looks more like something you read somewhere and decided to throw at us to make yourself look smarter than you are.

[Kendahl897]

I'm not disputing your right to express your opinion...I disagree, but hey.. As far as the lesbian sex=death argument, go back and check some of the comments posted at the Bronze after Tara's death..Homophobes saying that she got what she deserved for what she'd been doing with Willow..In other words, making the argument of lesbian sex= death...I'm not saying that Joss and the folks at ME are homophobes.I don't believe that's true..They're certainly LIARS, but not homophobes..But if you go back and read the transcript from the Succubus Club interview with David Fury, you will see that even he acknowledged the cliche in hindsight..He understood that in the way it was portrayed, the connection could be made..
Now Joss has the right to do whatever he wants with any character he chooses. And we have the right to express our outrage..He had no problem accepting all of the praise we threw his way for 2 years, so the reaction by the kitten ( lesbian) community should come as no surprise..especially after 2 years of continual reassurance by Joss and the writers that they had no plans to send Tara anywhere.A simple 'no comment' or 'we'll see' would have sufficed. Blatant lies were just CRUEL and UNNECESSARY..
To conclude, what I find most ironic is that the very people who Joss claimed to have such disdain and contempt for ( homophobes) have now gotten the very thing they've wanted every since Tara came on the show, her death, in a way that has to have them glowing..While the fans who supported Amber and Joss, who lavished such praise and thanks his way, have been treated like shit.......
Reality Speaks, if you don't mind my asking, who is your favorite character on the show? Spike, Anya? Supposed Joss came out in interview after interview and told you that he had no plans to send either anywhere, then he killed one..How would you feel? Betrayed? Put yourself in our shoes....Willow and Tara were the ONLY realistically portrayed long-term couple on TV..Joss and the writers made reassuring comment after reassuring comment (look at FAQS) aimed towards their gay fan base. I believed them..And what was the big reward? Another DEAD lesbian on TV..As usual.

[Bookcat]

<b>RealitySpeaks</b>? If you don't like what's being said, you can choose not to come read it. Nobody's forcing you to. Okay?

[kpmuse]

God, Bob, yes! I thought you already were!

[xita]

The very same people who like to hurt homosexuals and murder them feel vindicated. The parents, and that would be countless, who refused to allow their children to watch Buffy, can now feel like they are right and once again allow them to watch it again. They can feel smug in their knowledge that gayness only leads to badness.

I hope it makes Joss proud, to know which fans he has cultivated. Those would welcome violence against people, and excuse rape.